Might as well start the week by sticking my head in a woodchipper…
“Huh? Who’s THAT guy?”
GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s surprise choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate supplied the first glimmer of hope I’ve had in several years regarding the nation’s political process and its prospects for addressing the long-term financial threats to America’s future. This is not because I regard myself as a Paul Ryan fan, except to the extent that he is obviously intelligent, serious, and qualified to hold office, thus marking him as superior to at least 75% of his colleagues. Nor is it because I believe the choice bolsters Romney’s chances of defeating President Obama: it might actually be a handicap, and very few VP choices make a decisive difference in Presidential elections—arguably LBJ in 1960, and that’s about it. Nor is it because I would have counseled Romney to pick Ryan had I been his advisor in the matter.
The New York Times headline yesterday made the case: Romney’s Choice Is Ryan, Pushing Fiscal Issues To The Forefront. That choice makes Romney a deserving Ethics Hero because it makes an unequivocal statement about the priorities in the election and the years ahead: close the deficit, reduce the debt, and take the United States off the road to Greece and inevitable insolvency. Ryan is the GOP herald of this cause, and it tells us something about how willfully irresponsible the public and the media have been regarding the debt crisis that most Americans have no idea who Ryan is. All conventional logic and wisdom holds that the issue is a ballot box loser, since Americans are simultaneously unwilling to sacrifice any part of the exploding entitlements the nation can’t afford and hostile to the idea of paying sufficient taxes to keep the country running. Well, too bad. This neglected crisis has to be explained, talked about and debated honestly, and with Ryan on the GOP ticket, it will be.
Vice-Presidential choices tend to fall into three categories: Tactical, Serious, and Who cares? It will not surprise you to read that the latter category is the rarest, by far. The current VP, Crazy Joe Biden, was a classic tactical choice, a longtime Washington polwith foreign policy credentials recruited to offset the obvious lack of foreign policy experience—indeed, any relevant experience—at the top of the ticket. The thought of a certified air-head like Biden becoming President was and is frankly terrifying, but never mind: Democratic air-heads, unlike GOP air-heads like Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin, are guaranteed a pass from the news media, and so it came to pass.
Romney had many possible tactical choices at his disposal—Marco Rubio, to court the Hispanic vote; Condi Rice, in the hope that the solid “Vote for Obama Because He’s Black and That’s Enough” African-American voting bloc could be eroded; Chris Christy, a rough-hewn regular guy type to balance Romney’s John Kerryish image; Rand Paul, to attract the libertarians, and more. He chose Paul Ryan. I know that those who are determined to withhold any credit from Romney will argue that the choice was a pander to the tea party right, which shares Ryan’s priorities, but this is just wrong. Those voters are already in Romney’s pocket; they would vote for a garden gnome over Obama. This was a serious choice.
So far, the campaign has been about dog-eating, personal attacks, gaffes, confusing Supreme Court opinions, race-baiting, divisiveness, fundraising and spin, and until this moment, there was little reason to believe it would get any better. Both parties have an obligation to be straightforward and honest with the public about the fiscal mess, and to make certain that this election cycle doesn’t pass without the country understanding the stark choices that must be made and the bleak fate that awaits if we refuse to make them. Currently, the public is blissfully ignorant of the extent of the problem. For example, a CBS News poll last year showed that only half of all Americans know that Social Security comprises as much as 20% of the actual budget; the other half think it is less. (It is more) Only 37% believe that Medicare and Medicaid are 20% or more of the budget. Most Washington leaders like and need this ignorance, which makes it easy for them to duck the issue of soaring deficits. It is also why the Senate has been able to get away with not passing a budget for three years. The last proposed budget President Obama sent to Congress was so willfully and cynically irresponsible in fiscal terms that even Democrats refused to vote for it. the nation shrugged. Hey, there’s always next year!
Now the issue is front and center, and whether you like him or not, Romney deserves the credit. Ryan was a courageous and responsible selection, and even if the ticket loses because of it, the nation will be better off as a result. well perhaps a better way to say that is that at least if we decide to stay on the road to Greece, we will have done so with a clear road map, and will get where we deserve to be.
George Will closed his column today on the choice of Ryan like this:
“Romney’s selection of a running mate was, in method and outcome, presidential. It underscores how little in the last four years merits that adjective.”
That’s harsh, and sad, but right.
____________________________________________
Spark: New York Times (headline)
Pointer: Volokh Conspiracy
Sources:
- Volokh (2)
- CBS
- Washington Post (George Will)
Graphic: Info Wars
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I’d give Romney credit if Ryan actually had a serious plan for getting rid of the deficit, and if he actually was a fiscal hawk. As it is, this is just more spectacle over substance.
I think that’s irrelevant. Ryan’s own formula isn’t necessarily Romney’s, and I really don’t care if he has the answer. He has the courage and integrity to ask the question, and deal in hard facts. Romney doesn’t have to endorse Ryan’s policies to choose him…in fact, I’m having a hard time, beyond Bush-Cheney, thinking of a time that a VP’s actual policy positions mattered at all.
Yes, Ryan asks valid questions, but he doesn’t deal in facts. He also isn’t actually a fiscal hawk, as his voting record during the Bush administration shows.
What Romney picked was the appearance of seriousness when it comes to the budget, not actual seriousness.
Yes, Ryan asks valid questions, but he doesn’t deal in facts.
Citation needed.
Really? That’s your argument against Jacks premise that his choice brings fiscal to the forefront of election issues?
He also isn’t actually a fiscal hawk, as his voting record during the Bush administration shows.
If you look at a slice of anyone’s record you can jump to unreasonable conclusions. Here is his entire record http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/. He is more of a hawk then most.
What Romney picked was the appearance of seriousness when it comes to the budget, not actual seriousness.
Paul Ryan is definitely playing at the part as has been shown by, nothing. He has been stalwart when compared to nearly everyone else in the political area when it comes to budgetary issues.
William Saletan has an article on Paul Ryan as VP in Slate, although I don’t agree with his whole piece he does have a great line that is reflective of where we are at fiscally in this country. Of Ryan he states “He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others.”
You may believe President Obama is the best choice for this country come election day but the fiscal situation of this country needs to be addressed and if through combat with the GOP for that vote results in him developing a sound plan for the future I am all for it.
“Yes, Ryan asks valid questions, but he doesn’t deal in facts.”
Citation needed.
Let’s just start with the Ryan’s budget plan…that’s based on supply side economics. Do you want me to pull out a specific reference?
Really? That’s your argument against Jacks premise that his choice brings fiscal to the forefront of election issues?
My argument is that Romney brought fiscal to the forefront by picking a running mate who doesn’t have a good fiscal history. Any credit earned for picking fiscal hawk Ryan is lost because Ryan is not good at dealing with fiscal issues.
Picking someone who’s known for horrible foreign policy would bring foreign policy to the forefront, but it’s not an ethical thing to do.
If you look at a slice of anyone’s record you can jump to unreasonable conclusions. Here is his entire record http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/. He is more of a hawk then most.
He wasn’t a hawk when Bush was in office. He was a party line voter then. Now, he’s a hawk when Obama’s in office…a party line voter again. Looks to me like Ryan is a party line voter. The hawkish talk was always there, but his record doesn’t back it up.
“What Romney picked was the appearance of seriousness when it comes to the budget, not actual seriousness.”
Paul Ryan is definitely playing at the part as has been shown by, nothing. He has been stalwart when compared to nearly everyone else in the political area when it comes to budgetary issues.
William Saletan has an article on Paul Ryan as VP in Slate, although I don’t agree with his whole piece he does have a great line that is reflective of where we are at fiscally in this country. Of Ryan he states “He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others.”
You’re backing up my point here. Ryan has a detailed plan, therefore he is serious. It doesn’t matter that the plan is based on known false theories and would be a disaster. It’s detailed, so it’s serious. I reject that. It’s detailed, so it’s worth talking about instead of rejecting out of hand. Unfortunately, when you start looking at it, it’s crap.
A detailed plan on a given topic does not make the author of the plan smart on the given topic. It seems like everyone is forgetting this.
“Yes, Ryan asks valid questions, but he doesn’t deal in facts.”
Citation needed.
Let’s just start with the Ryan’s budget plan…that’s based on supply side economics. Do you want me to pull out a specific reference?”
Yes I do, you state he does not deal in facts. What facts are you referring to? The fiscal realities have some nuances but I have yet to see anything that leads me to believe that Ryan has misrepresented any major component or current trend of our economy. You may not agree with his proposals but to misrepresent that he has not taken a considered approach to the problem (facts) is just ridiculous.
“Really? That’s your argument against Jacks premise that his choice brings fiscal to the forefront of election issues?
My argument is that Romney brought fiscal to the forefront by picking a running mate who doesn’t have a good fiscal history. Any credit earned for picking fiscal hawk Ryan is lost because Ryan is not good at dealing with fiscal issues.
Picking someone who’s known for horrible foreign policy would bring foreign policy to the forefront, but it’s not an ethical thing to do.”
How do you come to this opinion that he is not good with fiscal issues? Even President Obama has held him up as an example of someone who is sincere and willing to address the economic realities this country faces. Are you relying again on some cherry picked votes for your assertion?
“If you look at a slice of anyone’s record you can jump to unreasonable conclusions. Here is his entire record http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26344/. He is more of a hawk then most.
He wasn’t a hawk when Bush was in office. He was a party line voter then. Now, he’s a hawk when Obama’s in office…a party line voter again. Looks to me like Ryan is a party line voter. The hawkish talk was always there, but his record doesn’t back it up.”
You’re treading closely to a No true Scotsman. His record indicates he is a Hawk, cherry pick whatever you like, the link was provided. I am not speaking of the party of historical hawkish members, but of the individual.
“What Romney picked was the appearance of seriousness when it comes to the budget, not actual seriousness.”
Paul Ryan is definitely playing at the part as has been shown by, nothing. He has been stalwart when compared to nearly everyone else in the political area when it comes to budgetary issues.
William Saletan has an article on Paul Ryan as VP in Slate, although I don’t agree with his whole piece he does have a great line that is reflective of where we are at fiscally in this country. Of Ryan he states “He’s got the least detailed budget proposal out there, except for all the others.”
You’re backing up my point here. Ryan has a detailed plan, therefore he is serious. It doesn’t matter that the plan is based on known false theories and would be a disaster. It’s detailed, so it’s serious. I reject that. It’s detailed, so it’s worth talking about instead of rejecting out of hand. Unfortunately, when you start looking at it, it’s crap.
A detailed plan on a given topic does not make the author of the plan smart on the given topic. It seems like everyone is forgetting this.”
Reject it all you want, I understand you may not agree with economic realities but you fail to address how Ryan is not serious on the economy. Because you don’t like his plan? Because it is hard on entitlement programs? Or because it doesn’t fleece all the evil wealthy Americans?
Facts: Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase tax revenue. If you deny this (like Ryan’s budget does), there’s no point in discussing economics with you.
Bad fiscally: Cutting spending during a recession is bad for the economy.
Record: No, the record indicates that he was not a hawk during Bush and is a hawk now. His words claim him as a hawk, but not his actions. I don’t see anything close to no true scotsman.
Ryan’s plan: I’ve already pointed out why Ryan’s plan isn’t serious. I’m not going in this circle.
Finally you put some substance down.
“Facts: Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase tax revenue. If you deny this (like Ryan’s budget does), there’s no point in discussing economics with you.”
It increases are GDP over time, proven time and again. Which increases revenue. If you don’t know this there’s no point in discussing economics with you.
“Bad fiscally: Cutting spending during a recession is bad for the economy.”
I wont disagree, but bankruptcy and loss of credit is worse for the economy.
“Record: No, the record indicates that he was not a hawk during Bush and is a hawk now. His words claim him as a hawk, but not his actions. I don’t see anything close to no true scotsman.”
No it does not, you can repeat it as many times as you would like but you are not correct. You have to look at the whole, not in part and the specifics and not just expenditures.
“Ryan’s plan: I’ve already pointed out why Ryan’s plan isn’t serious. I’m not going in this circle.”
Where?
Finally you put some substance down.
Didn’t I previously state all of this?
“Facts: Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase tax revenue. If you deny this (like Ryan’s budget does), there’s no point in discussing economics with you.”
It increases are GDP over time, proven time and again. Which increases revenue. If you don’t know this there’s no point in discussing economics with you.
No, it doesn’t. You appear to be stating counterfactuals.
“Bad fiscally: Cutting spending during a recession is bad for the economy.”
I wont disagree, but bankruptcy and loss of credit is worse for the economy.
…which is what occurs when you cut spending during a recession.
“Record: No, the record indicates that he was not a hawk during Bush and is a hawk now. His words claim him as a hawk, but not his actions. I don’t see anything close to no true scotsman.”
No it does not, you can repeat it as many times as you would like but you are not correct. You have to look at the whole, not in part and the specifics and not just expenditures.
I know, I shot two of my brothers, but if you look at the whole, I’m anti-fratricide.
Saying we need to look at the whole, and failing to actually explain how the pieces make up the hole, is the domain of charlatans without evidence.
Also, if we expand beyond expenditures, Ryan is hurt even more. As noted below, he voted for unfunded things and tax cuts during the Bush administration. His record on bringing in money is part of why he’s not a fiscal hawk.
“Finally you put some substance down. Didn’t I previously state all of this? ”
Nope, you said “Yes, Ryan asks valid questions, but he doesn’t deal in facts. He also isn’t actually a fiscal hawk, as his voting record during the Bush administration shows.
What Romney picked was the appearance of seriousness when it comes to the budget, not actual seriousness.”
From there you just kept beating that drum.
“Facts: Cutting taxes for the rich does not increase tax revenue. If you deny this (like Ryan’s budget does), there’s no point in discussing economics with you.” It increases are GDP over time, proven time and again. Which increases revenue. If you don’t know this there’s no point in discussing economics with you. No, it doesn’t. You appear to be stating counterfactuals. ”
Cutting taxes across the board helps with both consumer sales and investing which results in revenue, which is the more important at this point is debatable and I will concede this point but your over all assertion is incorrect. You keep stating inaccurate claims on Ryan budget and I am starting to get an idea you may not actually know what is in the plan, or any CBO analysis. I will not say it is a perfect plan, nor that it is an ideal plan but your categorizations thus far are political talking points and not rooted in reality.
“Bad fiscally: Cutting spending during a recession is bad for the economy.” I wont disagree, but bankruptcy and loss of credit is worse for the economy. …which is what occurs when you cut spending during a recession. ”
Again you fail to face reality; I have already stated that spending during a recession can have a positive effect; as such I would not be completely opposed to a responsible stimulus plan. However a sustained deficit is a death sentence to a county, his plan addresses our long term projections; take a look at them and you will see it is pretty clear. All available on cbo.gov.
“Record: No, the record indicates that he was not a hawk during Bush and is a hawk now. His words claim him as a hawk, but not his actions. I don’t see anything close to no true scotsman.” No it does not, you can repeat it as many times as you would like but you are not correct. You have to look at the whole, not in part and the specifics and not just expenditures. I know, I shot two of my brothers, but if you look at the whole, I’m anti-fratricide. Saying we need to look at the whole, and failing to actually explain how the pieces make up the hole, is the domain of charlatans without evidence. Also, if we expand beyond expenditures, Ryan is hurt even more. As noted below, he voted for unfunded things and tax cuts during the Bush administration. His record on bringing in money is part of why he’s not a fiscal hawk.”
Your obviously are going to stick to talking points and make ludicrous analogies. You want to cite specific cases that were responses to specific issues yet disregard the whole. I understand bias but you don’t seem to be able to look at this objectively at all, can you not see the differences between national security concerns or even stimulus and programmed expenditures? You also want to go as far as to disregard the state of the economy and deficit from one point to another.
This is my last response to you here as we are off track from Jacks’ original point and I don’t want to highjack the post further, I am willing to discuss it with you elsewhere or when it will now inevitably come up again during this election.
1. Okay, maybe I wasn’t specific enough
2. Cutting taxes repays something like 92 cents on the dollar. Government spending repays something like $1.70 on the dollar. Cutting taxes does not help as much as increased spending.
2.5. What about Ryan’s plan have I misstated? The general accusation, again, is worthless.
3. Sustained deficit is bad, cutting spending during a recession is sure to cause a sustained deficit. You’ve got all the pieces, you’re just not connecting them properly. Also, Ryan’s plan, in the best case scenario, balances the budget in 30 years. Not anytime soon, and, as noted, his assumptions are bad. Getting out of the recession and then balancing the budget is a much better idea.
4. I’m not disregarding anything. I’ve pointed out good reasons to believe Ryan was not a hawk during the Bush administration. If you can push back, then push back. Citing “the whole” does not encroach on my position at all. I’m pretty sure I also appropriately paralleled Ryan’s decisions between the Bush and Obama presidencies, so your attempts to deflect by claiming I don’t understand the situations is pretty pathetic.
—-
Whether you respond or not, I wasn’t going to leave your false accusations and poor logic unchallenged.
You may believe President Obama is the best choice for this country come election day but the fiscal situation of this country needs to be addressed and if through combat with the GOP for that vote results in him developing a sound plan for the future I am all for it.
You mean the combat that was already happening? The plans that were rejected out of hand by the republican dominated congress because they *gasp* raise taxes, which is something that Ryan refuses to consider.
I think we already had what you hope this move will cause.
“You may believe President Obama is the best choice for this country come election day but the fiscal situation of this country needs to be addressed and if through combat with the GOP for that vote results in him developing a sound plan for the future I am all for it.
You mean the combat that was already happening? The plans that were rejected out of hand by the republican dominated congress because they *gasp* raise taxes, which is something that Ryan refuses to consider.
I think we already had what you hope this move will cause.”
Yes the combat that is continuously distracted by whatever the media can find. The plans that were rejected out of hand were because they were “crap”. There are much bigger issues in the budget and economy that must be addressed, we spend too much money for what is coming in, and the answer is not to go out and rob a wealthy neighbor but to reduce spending. I am not out and out opposed to a tax increase but that does nothing to address our spending problem.
Has anyone suggested invading Canada for money? No, right? Me thinks you’re begging the question.
Spending should be addressed, yes. But it’s stupid to do so in a recession. It should have been done in a boom. During the boom, Ryan voted to increase spending.
TGT is right. Regardless of one’s view of the right relationship of government to the private sector, timing matters. It matters enormously, as a matter of fact.
And this is the worst time to take that kind of action. The very simple result of massive cuts right now is blindingly obvious: more unemployment. How can anyone seriously believe that laying off masses of people is magically going to make the private sector through good money after bad, investing in even more unutilized capacity when there isn’t the demand to soak up what we’ve already got?
What do you think will happen to home prices if we lay off another million teachers? What do you think will happen to sales of commercial office equipment providers if we shut down another thousand offices?
The time to cut government, as TGT says, is when the economy is booming. The dumbest thing to do when the economy is in the tank is to cut government spending. It doesn’t take brains to figure that one out, any high school economics textbook will do.
Or, if you don’t trust high school textbooks, look at Europe and the UK.
“The very simple result of massive cuts right now is blindingly obvious: more unemployment.”
The system has to be fixed, propping it up will end with the same result.
“How can anyone seriously believe that laying off masses of people is magically going to make the private sector through good money after bad, investing in even more unutilized capacity when there isn’t the demand to soak up what we’ve already got?”
You mean like government spending does?
“What do you think will happen to home prices if we lay off another million teachers? ”
Yes home prices (and taxes from such) are so much more important than a solvent government. Why should the teachers receive special protection? This is just a play on sympathy.
“What do you think will happen to sales of commercial office equipment providers if we shut down another thousand offices?”
They will become more competitive and innovative.
“The time to cut government, as TGT says, is when the economy is booming.”
The time for that has past my friend; it doesn’t change the requirement that it needs to happen.
If you would have paid attention to your high school economics textbook you would know that spending money you do not have is bad economic policy. The only time government spending results in significant GDP growth is through DOD expenditures during conflicts, want another war? No businesses want to roll the dice with this unfriendly business climate, uncertain regulations, crushing dept and dwindling credit ratings. Now I am not rejecting your premise out of hand, I am just trying to inject some reality into your assertion. We have cities going bankrupt, we have an increasing number of the populace on entitlements, and not enough growth to cover it. We have tried the approach of amassing debt to stimulate the economy, which I won’t say didn’t help, but now we need to do some cuts. There is no silver bullet to this.
If you would have paid attention to your high school economics textbook you would know that spending money you do not have is bad economic policy. The only time government spending results in significant GDP growth is through DOD expenditures during conflicts, want another war? No businesses want to roll the dice with this unfriendly business climate, uncertain regulations, crushing dept and dwindling credit ratings. Now I am not rejecting your premise out of hand, I am just trying to inject some reality into your assertion. We have cities going bankrupt; we have an increasing number of the populace on entitlements, and not enough growth to cover it. We have tried the approach of amassing debt to stimulate the economy, which I won’t say didn’t help, but now we need to do some cuts.
“The very simple result of massive cuts right now is blindingly obvious: more unemployment.”
The system has to be fixed, propping it up will end with the same result.
Yes, the system has to be fixed, but austerity during a recession isn’t going to fix the system.
“How can anyone seriously believe that laying off masses of people is magically going to make the private sector through good money after bad, investing in even more unutilized capacity when there isn’t the demand to soak up what we’ve already got?”
You mean like government spending does?
Government spending increases purchasing power… which switches the demand/capacity ratio… which makes private investment a winning bet. It’s pretty basic. This works for Government because of (1) it’s size and (2) it’s ability to run deficits without immediately going under.
“What do you think will happen to home prices if we lay off another million teachers? ”
Yes home prices (and taxes from such) are so much more important than a solvent government. Why should the teachers receive special protection? This is just a play on sympathy.
When home prices go down, people go bankrupt and can’t afford to buy as much, which brings demand down, which brings employment further down, which brings tax revenues down. Come on man. The same logic words for any government jobs.
“What do you think will happen to sales of commercial office equipment providers if we shut down another thousand offices?”
They will become more competitive and innovative.
Um, what? Competition and innovation tends to come when businesses are booming, not when you can’t find capital. Businesses are risk adverse in bad economic climates.
“The time to cut government, as TGT says, is when the economy is booming.”
The time for that has past my friend; it doesn’t change the requirement that it needs to happen.
Which doesn’t change the reality that cutting now is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility.
If you would have paid attention to your high school economics textbook you would know that spending money you do not have is bad economic policy.
Depends on the situation. For instance, it was good economic policy for me to buy a house, even though it involved spending $200K I didn’t have. Same thing goes with borrowing to start a business, and government spending in a recession.
The only time government spending results in significant GDP growth is through DOD expenditures during conflicts, want another war?
Depending on your specific meanings, this is either false or irrelevant. Government spending does drive growth. It’s not direct, but it does occur (as explained above).
No businesses want to roll the dice with this unfriendly business climate, uncertain regulations, crushing dept and dwindling credit ratings. Now I am not rejecting your premise out of hand, I am just trying to inject some reality into your assertion. We have cities going bankrupt, we have an increasing number of the populace on entitlements, and not enough growth to cover it. We have tried the approach of amassing debt to stimulate the economy, which I won’t say didn’t help, but now we need to do some cuts. There is no silver bullet to this.
First, the plan is not to amass debt, it’s to spend more. Those are not the same thing. Second, we have only tried a limited version of this stimulation, which does appear to have helped. From this you conclude it’s now time to cut. Why? Shouldn’t we try a bigger stimulus?
As a conservative I want big government dismantled and entitlements brought under fiscal control in as humane a way as possible. Ryan is the only national leader of either party who seems trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to undertake this task. That, I think, is the brilliance of Mitt’s (not my candidate, btw) pick. If the GOP wins this year I think Ryan will be progressives best hope to “be reasonable” during the unwinding process. They should be cheering his selection today if they are serious libs.
Unless we as a nation wish to bankrupt ourselves and begin again from scratch..
Ryan is the only national leader of either party who seems trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to undertake this task.
You say this about the guy who’s plan would balloon the deficit.
I think Ryan will be progressives best hope to “be reasonable” during the unwinding process.
Based on him previously being completely unreasonable?
—
What Ryan has going for him is that he’s still on the political map. He hasn’t gone over into “Me ogg. Liberal bad; Conservative good!” clown territory like much of the GOP. His fiscal policy has already been shown to be ineffective and stupid, but because of the crazies in the Republican party, he’s treated as “serious”, even when he’s everything but.
I see that not only Saabs are (were) made in TROLLhätten.
tgt’s conclusions seem contrived. Even though Ryan’s recent budget proposals may be imperfect, yet they far outshine everything else on those lines submitted by the current administration and previous two houses. Perhaps a touch of fiscal responsibility envy?
Ryan’s budget is 100% cuts. Even Jack says that tax increases are a must to solve our fiscal issue. Cutting services in a recession is both fiscally stupid and ethically questionable.
Oh, also, which of my conclusions isn’t supported by the evidence?
“Oh, also, which of my conclusions isn’t supported by the evidence?”
Which one actually is?
I purport they all are. If you (or 49erDweet) have a problem with one, point it out. Until then, you’re not attacking my positions, you’re making generalizations.
I purport they all are. If you (or 49erDweet) have a problem with one, point it out. Until then, you’re not attacking my positions, you’re making generalizations.
How about all of them, you have presented nothing other than Ryan voted for some increases during his career, therefore he is not a hawk despite his whole record and continual outspokenness. You have generalized everything, when faced with his record you only want to double down and not address it because it is counter to your claims.
I have concluded and supported my conclusions for much more than the budget hawk comment, but I’ll point out how I’ve supported that so far:
You can’t call someone a budget hawk if they voted for trillions in unpaid for legislation. His overall record is someone who talks about being fiscally responsible, but doesn’t act based on fiscal reasoning at all.
Bush in office -> Vote for 2 unfunded wars
Obama in office -> Demand all military action be fully paid for.
Bush in office -> Vote for unfunded medicare prescription drug plan.
Obama in office -> Refuse to vote for healthcare reform because it isn’t fully funded.
Bush in office -> Vote for tax cuts.
Obama in office -> Well, vote for tax cuts.
This isn’t cherrypicking. When it matters, Ryan votes along party lines; whether he actually cares about fiscal responsibility is irrelevant.
You can call Ryan a fiscal chickenhawk (beat’s the drum of fiscal responsibility without backing it up), but not a hawk.
493erDweet,
Are you aware that government has grown less under Obama than under any president since WWII? Certainly less than under Reagan and Bush.
Are you aware that in the last few years the Obama Administration has already been implementing a lot of what the Repubs have been howling for–cutting government employees and stopping transfer payments?
And yet you suggest that Ryan, whose plan projects deficits for decades and who refuses to name where the cuts will come from, is “the only national leader of either party who seems trustworthy and knowledgeable enough to undertake this task.”
One of the bizarre facts of this election cycle is that Obama has already been presiding over a Republican policy implementation, with predictably disastrous results for the economy – and yet the GOP is blaming him for it! Blaming him for doing their own program.
Tali about nerve.
Hey now, Ryan named where alot of the cuts would come from, they’re just fiscally irresponsible places. It’s Romney who won’t say what will be cut.
Jack, Jack, Jack. You dismay me.
You write some brilliant stuff. I thought your take on Zakaria was thoughtful and unique; and you absolutely nailed the NYT ethicist guy.
But every once in a while you come up with a clunker like this.
Let’s start with your blog title history, which for evermore will read “Ethics Hero, Mitt Romney.”
Really, you wanted that? A lot of good things can be said about Romney; this would not have been at the top of the list, given his penchant for outrageously bald-faced twisting of the truth (health care) and his refusal to emulate his father in being transparent about his own wealth.
But, you argue, you’re only talking about this case? OK, it’s your headline for posterity; let’s argue this case.
No one can dispute that the reason for this guy’s fame is he’s the only anti-government flaming right-winger who appears to know how to use a spreadsheet. Unfortunately, everyone has been so flabbergasted by that fact (“OMG a Tea Partier who knows Excel!”) that they forgot to read the content of his spreadsheets.
It’s appalling!
There are entire blanks in his “program” that resemble that New Yorker cartoon of a scientist scribbling an entire blackboard of formulae, until the bottom right corner, where he writes “then a miracle happens!”
The fact that we have two ideologues representing what used to be one of our great parties ought to be frightening to anyone who actually reads those spreadsheets. In the name of “cutting government,” the pair of them won’t balance the budget for decades (but they’l sure as hell cut taxes on the rich), make a mess of our already inefficient health care system, and basically do it all on the backs of the middle class.
Facts you want, citations? I offer you an economist in Forbes magazine, from Texas Christian University, who’ll provide you all the facts you want. Here’s the title of his blogpost today” “Romney and Ryan’s Disastrous Economic Plan.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/08/12/romney-ryan-disastrous/
I beg you to go five levels deep in following the facts he has laid out there.
And as to your claim that Romney didn’t hire him because of his plan, that’s the ultimate cynical play by the man you have now enshrined as “ethical:” he fully intends to ignore the very plan that Ryan is famous for. If that isn’t tacit admission that his Veep’s plan is bunkum, I don’t know what is.
And as for Ryan’s devotion to principle, his willingness to give up the plan he made famous tells you all you need to know about the principles that matter to him. The guy who rejected Simpson-Bowles as too liberal signs on to a ticket with a guy who has publicly disavowed his program.
Can you say “Sarah Palin?” Sure looks like another cynical ploy to me. Ethics Hero? Jack, Jack, you can do so much better.
Jack’s terminology for ethics hero and ethics dunce is consistent. Jack thinks Obama is one of the worst leaders in presidential history, but that didn’t stop Jack from Ethics Heroing Obama.
Complaining about that is pointless and looks partisan.
Romney absolutely can be picking Ryan and ignoring the Ryan plan. Granted, Romney can’t ignore the plan and get credit for bringing fiscal responsibility to the forefront, but he absolutely can junk the plan.
Signing on as running mate (or signing up as running mate) is always going to involve some compromise of positions. It’s rare to find two politicians that are actually identical.
My father used to say that—“Jack, Jack Jack…” So your post made me smile, in a good way.
I almost closed comments for this one, because I didn’t want to get into debates over the other virtues or flaws of Romney or Ryan. I don’t see what’s cynical or deceptive about a presidential candidate not committing to the most well-known policy positions of the man he nominates to be VP—since that’s been true of every single VP candidate I can think of. The message is that the individual with this background/these abilities/ these positions and interests will be part of the administration. Reagan wasn’t committing to Bush’s policies—they disagreed on almost everything. Andrew Johnson? Henry Wallace? John Tyler, a Democrat, to a Whig President? Teddy Roosevelt, who the fat cat GOP of the period feared and disliked? As in the case of McCain and Palin, people are making up special rules that never existed before.
Ryan is the only member of either House who has seriously, and consistently pursued approaches to bringing the budget under control, and who can be counted upon to tell the truth about the train coming at the country out of the debt. I don’t care if his solution is bake sales and selling Texas and the National Parks..he doesn’t duck the issue, which means that Romney won’t duck the issue. Good. That makes one ticket out of two.
The President’s own commission—a ducking mechanism, as it turned out—made a fair, non-partisan and balanced recommendation that could have been a starting point for a responsible leader to build support for raising taxes, reforming entitlements and cutting the thousands of expensive goodies like the ethanol subsidy and PBS. The President wasn’t responsible, and has just played politics with the issue as if, as Will said, the debt could be fixed by tax increases on a small proportion of the public only. Romney’s pick forces the issue that is one the public doesn’t want to hear about and that it would be very happy to be lied to about (which is why Obama is obliging them.) That’s courageous and responsible.
Heck, people are even talking about the deficit here, on a post that has nothing to do with the deficit. It has to do with a candidate risking defeat to set the priorities of the election—which Democrats would love to be “how many women died of cancer when Romney wasn’t running his former company”, a recycle of all the Halliburton nonsense in 2000—to what it really needs to be.
As Glenn Reynold wrote in his USA Today Op-Ed: “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.”
Jack,
My apologies, I didn’t miss your point, I just allowed myself to get sucked in by a side argument and off topic, seems like a lot of that going on these days. Good post.
Ryan is the only member of either House who has seriously, and consistently pursued approaches to bringing the budget under control, and who can be counted upon to tell the truth about the train coming at the country out of the debt. I don’t care if his solution is bake sales and selling Texas and the National Parks..he doesn’t duck the issue, which means that Romney won’t duck the issue. Good. That makes one ticket out of two.
I’ll repeat, when someone is bad at something, you can’t give them credit for that thing.
As Glenn Reynold wrote in his USA Today Op-Ed: “Paul Ryan represents Obama’s most horrifying nightmare: Math.”
…except Paul Ryan is bad at math.
—-
I have tried to stay on Ryan’s fiscal credentials…which are completely germane to the ethics of this situation.
You might also refer people to David Stockman’s critique of Paul Ryan in today’s op-ed in the Times. Stockman, of course, was the head of OMB be under Ronald Reagan, and a Budget Geek Master bar none. His verdict: “Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan.”
The day Ryan admits to concocting fairy tales is the day he becomes credible. (Though in fairness, you could claim that Ayn Rand’s works are pretty close to fairytale already).
Stockman is a smart guy, and he may be right, or he may be wrong….I’m sure not the one to be able to tell. But the John Dean act of old disgraced officials trying to grab 15 minutes of comeback fame and some interviews (and maybe a book deal) by attacking someone from the sidelines who is trying to do a better job than they did is inherently suspect, particularly coming from a guy like Stockman, who, you will no doubt recall, showed himself to be thoroughly inept and untrustworthy when he discredited his own administration, embarrassed Reagan and admitted that he had flunked every integrity test in the book while supposedly reforming the budget process. Stockman was thoroughly discredited in the Eighties, and has been in well-deserved exile ever since. I’m sure you wouldn’t trust him (or cite him) if he came out in favor of Ryan’s positions—I sure wouldn’t. I wouldn’t believe anything David Stockman says from now until the day he dies; I wouldn’t hire him; I wouldn’t read his op-ed pieces. Why would you?
Jack,
Depending on the issue, I’d absolutely believe Stockman (or not). If he was selling me a position in a private equity fund, I’d sell it short. But if he’s preaching conservative economic gospel, I’d believe him over almost anyone.
Let’s remember a little history. He got ousted from the Reagan White House for telling the truth: that supply side trickle down economics was a con job to mask Reagan’s failure to actually deliver on real cuts. Stockman was the conservative purist radical; the very position that Ryan is pretending to be today.
Stockman has consistently maintained the same kind of budgetary perspective that we hear from Ron Paul, and it’s telling that both Stockman and Ron Paul are unified in denouncing Ryan’s plan as a sham. Both are far more principled right-wing cut-government people, at least as measured by consistently arguing in favor of cutting government as as way of reducing government expenditures.
Here’s David Stockman on the last version of corporate Republicanism:
“”(Extending the Bush tax cuts is) rank demagoguery. We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn’t come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves.”[20]
“The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They’re on an anti-tax jihad — one that benefits the prosperous classes.”[21]
And here’s Rand Paul on today’s version of the same dogma:
“On an interview on the Fox Business Network, Paul suggested that the Ryan budget, roundly condemned as draconian and extreme by Democrats, does not cut enough spending. The Ryan budget, for example, does not balance the budget for 30 years. Paul’s budget balances the budget in two years. Paul also points out that Ryan’s budget, unlike his, would not eliminate cabinet departments and agencies wholesale. Paul also suggests that “overseas militarism” needs to be cut, which the Ryan budget does not.”
These are right-wing critics, not lefties; and if they think Romney is being fraudulent in proposing Ryan as a serious candidate, I think it seriously calls into question (once again) his own seriousness about raising the budget as a question.
You don’t get credit for saying the sky is falling if they also believe you when the say the solution is voodoo. Because that can make it worse. Witness the slowly evolving disaster that is “austerity” economics in Europe.
Ron Paul, not Rand Paul, I meant; sorry
What Stockman did was to cut the legs out from under his boss in an effort to duck his own responsibility in allowing the budget reform process to succumb to political pork-stuffing. You know that’s unprofessional and unethical conduct by any employee, especially at that level, especially in politics. The fact that his betrayal made him a hero to the Left is not a very good reflection on the Left at all: Why don’t they condemn George Stephanopoulis for not blowing the whistle on Bill and Hillary? Stockman’s “confession” was a self-serving breach of trust. He wasn’t reporting a crime; he was blame-shifting for his own failure, and willing to give the political enemies of the man who trusted him ammunition in the process. I find, and have always found, Stockman to be contemptible.
So much for ad hominem argumentation. What about the very same thoughts as expressed by Ron Paul? Is he out of order too for sayin the very same things?
The point is the same regardless of who says it. There is no there there in Paul Ryan’s plan. To me, that suggests Romney is not ethical, but profoundly cynical. Yet again.
Yes, but this is an appeal to authority, Charles. The statement is equally valid regardless of who says it, but if I’m asked to accept validity based on who says it, then the speaker matters. I don’t have the economic expertise to check Stockman’s opinion, and I can find better financial minds than mine to dispute him. In such a situation, I need someone I can trust. I would trust Robert Samuelson, for example. Ron Paul? Not a chance. Rand Paul? Even less.
Then you should read Dean Baker’s “Samuelson Goes to Bat for Paul Ryan: Strikes Out.”
Read it for content, not the messenger.
http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-samuelson-goes-to-bat-for-paul-ryan-strikes-out-2012-8
Good one.
Charlesgreen,
Good article, Thanks
An asteroid is hurtling toward the earth. Everybody is blissfully ignoring it, pretending that it doesn’t exist or is harmless. One man with a telescope, a radio show and a blog keeps insisting…”THERE’S AN ASTEROID COMING AND WE HAVE ONLY A LITTLE TIME TO SAVE THE WORLD!” His solution? “LET’S PRAY TO GOD AND HE WILL SAVE US!”
Would you say that he isn’t superior to everyone else by virtue of his warning, despite his idiot solution? Or that those who tear apart his remedy but continue to pretend the asteroid isn’t a threat are more admirable, trustworthy or responsible?
First, it’s not a little time. Second, Ryan’s plan is actually: “TO AVOID DEATH BY ASTEROID IN A FEW YEARS, WE HAVE TO NUKE EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW!”
No, pretending the asteroid doesn’t exist is not good, but causing death sooner rather than later is worse. it’s not about admirability, trustworthiness, or responsibility: it’s about stupidity.
Jack,
Granted it’s only been a few weeks since you posted this, but I’m curious what your thoughts are post-GOP convention.
Your point was that Ryan’s selection would push fiscal issues to the forefront of the campaign and “make an unequivocal statement about the priorities in the election.” I’m not really clear whether that has or has not happened, as you’d have to assess what would have happened had Romney chosen someone else.
Still, here’s one item of food for thought: that the Romney 5-point plan is identical to the GOP plans of 2008, 2006, 2004, and so forth. http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/romney-will-solve-crisis-exact-same-gop-plan-2008-2006-2004
Stipulated: that Mike Konczal is a clear partisan. But his careful analysis of policies bears reading. And to that extent: has Ryan’s selection altered the debate?
And although you gave Ryan considerable maneuvering room to play the usual VP role of cynical attack dog (you’re right, it’s nothing new), still I was struck by the level of cynicism Ryan conveyed in the brazen statements about Janesville, Medicare arithmetic and the like.
So, early on: do you feel Ryan has lived up to your hopes for his addition to the ticket? Honest question.
Briefly, because I want to steer as clear of politics as I can this election as long as I can:
1. I view conventions as theater, not substance. I think appeals to substance are generally illusory—a politician is speaking to two audiences, a partisan, extreme one in front of him (or her) and a more moderate, less attentive general (and larger one) in TV land, so it is a no-win proposition. In Romney’s case, I endorse the decision to speak in themes and generalities, and regard the media’s criticism of that choice pure bias and Democratic talking point stuff. Bob Shrum actually criticized the speech as oratory. He’s welcome to his opinion, but I coach speakers professionally, and Romney is easily the best speaker the GOP has had running for POTUS since Reagan…it isn’t even a close. (Admittedly, his competition—the Bushes, McCain, Dole—is wretched.) Romney, despite the efforts by Democrats and the media to paint him otherwise, is a non-ideological technocrat, like FDR in that respect. His message: I’ll fix the problem. In this time and place, that’s the right message. In that room, it had to be muted.
2. Ryan: the noise right now is so loud that I have to withhold judgment. The stuff about Obama’s cuts to Medicare is obviously nonsense. I won’t make a judgment this early: I remember that I was impressed with Sarah Palin at the last convention.
3. The criticism of Clint, by the way, is viciously ageist. We saw a lot of this against McCain too. I wonder why Democrats are hyper-politically correct except when it comes to seniors? If I were conspiratorial by nature, I’d say the Clint routine was a trap. Attacking him is foolish—cognitive dissonance tells us that Eastwood has more good will in the bank than his critics, and they will lose. I thought his routine was a misfire, but certainly not the embarrassment it is being painted as. I see no reason to discourage innovative forms at political conventions.
4. Plans at this point are only important to those who don’t understand management, and I know you do. I will never forget the moment in the debate in 2008 when Obama, having said that he would reform healthcare, address global warming, institute new energy programs, re-commit to Afghanistan, create jobs, reform the financial system, invest in education, and revitalize the infrastructure, was asked by the moderator, “With all the financial constraints and looming deficit, obviously you are going to have to prioritize. Which of these massive policy initiatives do you regard as most important?” And Obama said, (I’m paraphrasing), “All of them. They are all too important not to do.”
And I said, “Oh-oh.”
Thanks Jack, that’s very thoughtful. For what it’s worth, I think I agree w. about everything you said, too (!).
Two more thoughts: I’m coming to see the Eastwood thing differently. Clint pulled a classic Clint, bamboozled the handlers to be his own man. He is clearly pro-Romney and pro-Republican, but he’s also pro-choice and for gay rights (unlike the GOP). I think his image will end up being more burnished, less tarnished, than at least I had first thought. He was true to brand, namely no one’s man.
I wonder what you think about Ryan’s mis-remembering the marathon time? I myself ran one marathon, and I remember precisely my time – 3:43, in Montreal, in September 1981. When I heard he ran sub-3 hours and couldn’t quite remember his time, I had two thoughts: 1. Jeez he must actually be a good athlete, it’s not just hype; 2. I can’t believe that, we’d have heard about it, and he’d darn well remember it.
Then he calls it “pretty fast.” Turns out he was slower than I was! And I wasn’t fast.
But as you say, it’s early. We shall see.
I am torn on the Ryan issue, and am about to write about it. I find it troubling. Being intentionally deceptive about trivial matters is a bad sign. “Mis-remembering” something is not necessarily, and mis-remembering in ways that make one look good is a human failing. People who dislike and distrust Ryan want to make it a case of signature significance, which it cleary isn’t; those who like him want to dismiss it as meaningless, and they can’t fairly say that, either. It should put everyone on alert. I am.
Yes, I think that’s a good read on Clint.