Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare, voted down by the Senate last night, may carry electoral risk for those who back it, as recent state and national survey data suggests, yet presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty is now backing the plan.

He made this statement to reporters in New Hampshire, according to Politico:

First of all, I applaud Congressman Ryan for his courage and his leadership in putting his plan forward. At least he has a plan. President Obama doesn’t have a plan. The Democrats don’t have a plan. And I really applaud his leadership and his courage in putting a plan on the table. Number two, we will have our own plan; it will have many similarities to Congressman Ryan’s plan, but it will have some differences, one of which will be we’ll address Social Security. He chose not to; we are addressing Social Security. And the Medicare part of our plan will have some differences, too. It will have some similarities also. So we’ll have our own plan. But if I can’t have my own plan — as president, I’ll have my own plan [but] if I can’t have that, and the bill came to my desk and I had to choose between signing or not Congressman Ryan’s plan, of course I would sign it.

That drew a quick response from Democrats. Citing her party’s win in a New York special congressional election this week — a race that many see as a referendum on Ryan’s plan — DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz released a statement about a plan she said “even Newt Gingrich called ‘radical.’”

“[N]ow it’s clear that [Pawlenty] would ignore the wishes of the American people and the best interests of this nation and its seniors in order to win the approval of the far right,” she said. “Governor Pawlenty may have passed his party’s primary litmus test by voicing his approval of a plan to end Medicare – but he has failed a critical leadership test.”

She continued, “If he can’t stand up to the far right of his party on issues as central to Americans’ well-being as Medicare, how does he expect us to believe he would exercise independent, reasoned judgment as President?  It’s clear that if Governor Pawlenty were elected President he would embrace far-right Republican policies, piling additional burdens on America’s seniors, young people, and working families in order to provide additional benefits to big oil and the wealthiest few.”

As MinnPost’s Derek Wallbank notes, Pawlenty was in Washington yesterday on his “truth tour,” where he sidestepped a yes-or-no question on whether he’d support Ryan’s plan.

The ad wars in the 8th Congressional District continued this weekend with the announcement that Americans United for Change plans to spend “five figures” on a television ad campaign targeting four members of the House who voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. The ad buy targets Rep. Chip Cravaack for backing the measure, which includes drastic changes to Medicare through a voucher system for private insurance. Cravaack is also being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but he’s got defenders: The conservative 60 Plus Association has bought ads of its own.

“If Republicans have their way, there would be no more guaranteed Medicare benefits for America’s seniors, only a guarantee of paying more and more out of pocket for less care after being left to the mercy to the private insurance industry,” said AUC executive director Tom McMahon in a statement. “There would only be a guarantee that millions of Americans would lose their jobs – only a guarantee that America’s poor and disabled will live sicker and die younger while millionaires get another tax break they don’t need and the nation cannot afford.”

He added, “This is not a path to prosperity, only a path to bankrupting seniors so Paris Hilton and BP can have another tax break. And there’s nothing courageous about that.”

In addition to Cravaack, the ad buy targets Rep. Steve King of Iowa, as well as Wisconsin Reps. Sean Duffy and Paul Ryan. Here’s the ad targeting Cravaack:

The DCCC spent several hundred dollars in the 8th to target Cravaack last week for his vote to “end Medicare.” In response, the conservative 60 Plus Association is launching $65,000 worth of radio ads thanking Cravaack for “protecting Medicare.“

Minnesota U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack are the targets of radio ads by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee over their votes to “end Medicare.” The ad buy is extremely small and is part of the DCCC’s “Drive to 25″ campaign, an effort launched in January with the aim of gaining back the 25 seats the Democrats need to win the House in 2012.

“This is a defining moment for House Republicans: they chose to end Medicare rather than end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil or tax breaks for the ultra rich,” DCCC Chairman Steve Israel said in a statement announcing the ads. “We will go district by district to hold Republicans accountable for the wrong choice they made.”

The 15-second radio ad says, “Did you know Congressman Michele Bachmann voted to end Medicare forcing seniors to pay $12,500 for private health insurance, without guaranteed coverage? Tell Bachmann to keep her hands off our Medicare.”

A similar ad buy has been purchased to target Cravaack. The ads are part of “news-weather-traffic” radio, the DCCC says, and the group is supplementing them with web ads, phone banking and action alert emails in those districts.

As Ben Smith at Politico notes, the ad buys are very small and for Cravaack’s district amount to $160.

The DCCC says that Republicans who voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget voted to end Medicare. The Ryan budget creates a voucher system for seniors to go out on the private market to purchase insurance, an idea that virtually all experts have said will cost seniors more money. The plan would not affect seniors currently on Medicare.

The DCCC released this web ad along with the radio ads:

Democratic members of Congress balked at being called socialists during a debate on Friday over the Republicans’ proposed budget and the Progressive Caucus’ proposed budget. Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama accused the progressives in Congress of being socialists who are putting America “at risk.” Rep. Keith Ellison asked that Brooks retract the word “socialist” from his remarks.

“Folks we are here today forcing this issue because America is at risk,” said Brooks. “We are at risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because the socialist members of this body choose to spend money that we do not have. They believe in wealth transfer programs.”

Rep. Ellison interrupted. “Point of order. My point of order is I would like the gentleman’s words taken down referencing members of this body as socialists.”

After some discussion, Ellison asked, “Does the gentleman withdraw his word or not?”

Brooks did, but he didn’t do so without some complaint.

“Ladies and gentlemen of America, we all know what we are talking about here and we all know the what the definitional terms are, and I’m more than happy to resume this discussion off the House floor, but for whatever reason I’m not permitted to use one word,” he said.

Friday was a day of budget battles on Capitol Hill. The Republicans put forward their budget, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, with massive changes to Medicare, deep cuts to social safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps, and lower taxes on the wealthy and corporations through reforms the tax code.

Progressive Democrats put forward the People’s Budget which would raise taxes on the wealthy and propose deep cuts to defense and military spending mainly be ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

After backing off his socialist claim, Brooks slammed the progressive budget proposal. “To the United States of America now, this progressive People’s Budget I submit to you is nothing more than a Trojan horse. Why should anyone believe that the folks who have wracked up these massive deficit that is put America at risk are now going to change their stripes?”

California Rep. Maxine Waters of California had a different view of history.

“The gentleman from Alabama evidently has amnesia,” he said. “The Clinton administration eliminated the deficit and left a balanced budget; it was the Bush administration that created the deficit. I rise in strong support for this the Progressive Caucus’ alternative balanced People’s Budget.

She continued, “During the last administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maxed out our nation’s credit card for wars and tax cuts for the rich all while saying that deficits don’t matter. Now they are in an identity crisis as a rationale to undermine programs they have never supported and push a divisive social agenda that’s a sideshow to our budget debate.”

Ellison and McCollum were the only two member of the Minnesota delegation to vote in favor of the People’s Budget, which failed with only 77 votes.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget passed the House 235-193 with no Democrats voted for it. The Minnesota delegation was split between the state’s four Democrats and four Republicans.

Following the Tuesday release of House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution (PDF), senior groups and analysts have come out specifically against the proposed health care changes, saying seniors would pay twice as much for health care as they are now.

From Kaiser Health News:

• The Ryan proposal would do away with the traditional Medicare program and shift beneficiaries into private insurance plans in 2022, under a model called “premium support.” … Those plans would cost considerably more than traditional Medicare, the [Congressional Budget Office] says, partly because private plans pay hospitals, doctors and other providers more and have higher administrative costs. At the same time, enrollees would also pay a higher percentage of the overall cost of their coverage.
• Chip Kahn, president and chief executive officer of the Federation of American Hospitals, said that Ryan’s plan to repeal the law’s coverage expansions but keep the provider cuts “will severely impact access to essential medical care for seniors, as well as the lowest income Americans.”

Kaiser’s analysis comes largely from the Congressional Budget Office’s long-term analysis of Ryan’s budget proposal, which concluded that under this plan, the government’s mandatory health care spending would be approximately 6 percent of GDP in 2030 and 2040 and approximately 5 percent in 2050, compared with approximately 12 percent of GPD under current law.

From the Congressional Budget Office Director’s Blog posted Tuesday:

Under the proposal CBO analyzed, debt would eventually shrink relative to the size of the economy—but the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program; payments to physicians and other providers for services provided under the traditional Medicare program would be restrained; states would have to pay substantially more for their Medicaid programs or tightly constrain spending for those programs; and spending as a share of GDP for federal programs other than Social Security and the major health care programs would be reduced far below historical levels. It is unclear whether and how future lawmakers would address the pressures resulting from the long-term scenarios or the proposal.

On Tuesday, the senior lobby group AARP — which itself has become a GOP target for having supported the the health care plan and is under investigation by some Republicans in the House Committee on Ways and Means — offered its criticisms for Ryan’s budget proposal.

“The Chairman’s proposal, rather than tackling skyrocketing health care costs, would simply shift these costs onto the backs of people in Medicare,” said AARP Executive Vice President Nancy A. LeaMond in a statement. “It would undermine Medicare’s promise of secure health coverage—a guarantee that future seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.”

LeaMond suggested that a different route to rein in Medicare costs would be allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug costs and expanding access to generic brands of expensive biologic drugs. She also took issue with Ryan’s proposal to transform Medicaid into block grants, saying it could “deny vulnerable seniors and the disabled access to long-term care and force deep cuts in quality and safety in nursing homes, leaving more seniors at risk of elder abuse and neglect. Instead of imperiling seniors’ access to vital services, Congress should work with the states to find smarter ways to save Medicaid money, such as allowing more seniors to receive needed services in their homes and communities.”

The White House has criticized the proposed plan for cutting taxes “for millionaires and special interests while placing a greater burden on seniors who depend on Medicare or live in nursing homes, families struggling with a child who has serious disabilities, workers who have lost their health care coverage, and students and their families who rely on Pell grants.”

In an interview with PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, Ryan disagreed that his plan “ends Medicare as we know it,” arguing that the bulk of his plan is similar to Medicare Advantage, which he said, “is nothing different than what I’m talking about, which is about 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries get comprehensive private plans.”

When Woodruff asked what Americans won’t get under his plan that they would have gotten under Obama’s plan, Ryan laughed, leaned over in his chair, and said, “Wow, where do I begin?”

Watch the full interview:

Meanwhile, The New York Times’ Paul Krugman says Ryan’s proposal “depends an awful lot on unicorn sightings — belief in the impossible,” as it relies on assumptions that unemployment will nose-dive right away and that “federal spending on everything except health and Social Security can somehow be squeezed, as a percent of GDP, to a small fraction of current levels.”

On Medicare, Krugman notes that under Ryan’s plan, seniors would likely have to spend most of their income on health care. Krugman’s ultimate assessment of Ryan’s ideas? “This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking.”

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin introduced the Republican budget proposal on Tuesday, a budget that would spend $6.2 trillion less than President Obama’s budget, repeal funding for the Affordable Care Act, phase in a voucher system for Medicare, and cut $700 billion from Medicaid over the next decade. Minnesota’s political leaders were quick to respond to the proposal, with reactions falling along partisan lines.

Tim Pawlenty, a potential candidate in 2012, praised the budget:

Thanks to Paul Ryan in Congress, the American people finally have someone offering real leadership in Washington. President Obama has failed to lead and make tough choices his entire time in the White House. While the budget is going to be debated for several months to come, the more immediate issue we face is President Obama’s plans to raise the debt ceiling next month. That’s a really bad idea. With over $14 trillion debt already, we should not allow Washington’s big spenders to put us further in the hole. We must get our fiscal house in order with real spending cuts and with real structural reforms that stop the spending spree before it bankrupts our country.

In an email to supporters, Rep. John Kline called the budget “tough” and “responsible.”

Earlier today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) unveiled “The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise” – the GOP FY 2012 budget resolution. The proposal we have unveiled is a tough, responsible budget that will help America’s job creators put our nation back to work, secure America’s future by stopping Washington from spending money it doesn’t have, and preserve benefits for today’s seniors while strengthening the safety net for our children and grandchildren. This budget will restore economic certainty and put our nation back on the path to prosperity.

Rep. Michele Bachmann was a bit measured in her reaction to the budget:

“The fiscal disaster that’s been perpetuated by record levels of government spending is threatening to ruin our country. We need a way out and this plan merits our full attention. House Republicans are offering a budget resolution that is focused on job creation and debt reduction; the two key issues that the American people sent us here to address. This plan is proof that the new majority is heeding the calls of the American people to cut spending.

“The choice before us could not be clearer. President Obama’s spending plan will batter our economy and destroy jobs by adding $9.1 trillion to our national debt over the next ten years and raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. In stark contrast, the Republican plan cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the President’s budget. The plan intends to fully repeal ObamaCare and cut spending for it. This is what I have been working towards all along.

“I look forward to reviewing this plan further. It is time to put our nation on a sustainable fiscal path.”

Rep. Keith Ellison, along with Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva, penned an opinion piece zt Politico criticizing the budget. Here’s an excerpt:

In fact, this budget that punishes working families, while putting more of our tax dollars in the pockets of the rich, is nothing more than a Republican Roadmap to Ruin.

We know what happened during the 2000s — when Republicans failed to protect U.S. consumers, let Wall Street police itself and rigged the tax code in favor of a fortunate few. The Great Recession isn’t a coincidence — it’s cause and effect.

What do we see after years of corporate handouts at the expense of working families? Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and can’t find new ones. Millions of Americans have been kicked out of their homes. Americans who work hard every day and play by the rules can’t afford to send their kids to college.

CNN announced Tuesday afternoon that it will broadcast both Rep. Michele Bachmann’s reaction to President Obama’s State of the Union address live and the official Republican response by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Bachmann’s speech will be given through the group Tea Party Express. The Minnesota Independent will be live-blogging Bachmann’s response this evening.

“The Tea Party has become a major force in American politics and within the Republican Party,” CNN said in a statement on Tuesday. “Hearing the Tea Party’s perspective on the State of the Union is something we believe CNN’s viewers will be interested in hearing and we are happy to include this perspective as one of many in tonight’s coverage.”

Bachmann took some heat from local tea partiers who say she doesn’t speak for the movement. CNN has become a target of left-leaning bloggers and commentators who question the wisdom of allowing two Republican responses to Obama’s address, and Republicans have attempted to quash rumors that there’s a schism developing between the Bachmann/Tea Party faction and establishment Republicans.

But, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent notes the coup Bachmann has scored for her career.

“There is one clear winner in all this: Bachmann herself. By granting her such a large platform, CNN is generously enabling her efforts to cement her national status as a kind of Tea Party GOP leader-in-exile, and is basically rewarding her for her stunt.”

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is making a lot of waves with some highly controversial statements about unemployment insurance and tax cuts. Here’s Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler on Kyl:

The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate doubled down on a controversial statement he made this weekend, arguing in greater detail that tax cuts for wealthy people should never be offset by tax increases in other areas — but that unemployment benefits need to be fully paid for by either spending cuts or tax increases. In so doing, he claimed candidly that the very existence of unemployment insurance is a “necessary evil,” while tax cuts ought not be paid for by increases in order to make it easier to shrink the size of government.

“My view, and I think most of the people in my party don’t believe that you should ever have to offset a tax cut,” Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl told a handful of reporters outside the Senate chamber this afternoon. “That clearly reduced savings is a better way to offset increased spending than a tax increase is.”

On this, to put it mildly, Kyl is in opposition to most of the economic and political establishment, from both ends of the spectrum. Unemployment insurance is not a welfare benefit or a “necessary evil.” It is a federal insurance program, which helps guarantee that working Americans maintain a decent quality of life for themselves and their families during spells of joblessness. Virtually all Republicans support having an unemployment insurance system; where they differ with Democrats is in whether the spending should be offset or deficit-increasing. As for offsetting tax cuts with spending cuts or tax increases? Republicans very much support that, in principle if not always in practice.