There’s a lake of gin we can both jump in and the handouts grow on bushes. In the new-mown hay we can sleep all day and the bars all have free lunches.
–Big Rock Candy Mountain
Here is a fairly wonky discussion looking at what kinds of programs the Ryan Budget has to cut if they’re honest about balancing the budget instead of increasing the deficit. It calls for almost a trillion dollars in unexplained and unspecified cuts. “Mandatory and Defense and Nondefense Discretionary Spending” has to go from 12.5% of GDP to 3.75%. After accounting for the amount of that Ryan has said will still go to defense, that leaves approximately nothing for anything else, including:
Veterans Benefits (Function 700); the administration of justice, including the F.B.I. (Function 750); Education, Train and Social Services
I believe it also includes roads, farm supports, national parks, and a ton of other things we take for granted. And, in fact, when asked about the impact on veteran’s benefits, the Romney-Ryan campaign said that, of course they don’t want to cut veteran’s benefits; in fact, they want to give veterans more than President Obama does in his budget.
The way the Ryan budget is structured, not specifying cuts, it gives proponents of the budget a sort of plausible deniability to say that this or that particular budget item is safe. “Don’t worry Individual Voter, it’s not your vital government service at risk or causing the budget problems; it’s all that wasteful stuff that all those Other People get that we’ll be cutting.” This plays into the general ambiguity of the average voter’s position – they want cuts in the abstract but when you get down to specific items, there is not a lot of agreement or clarity of thought.
This is similar to Mitt Romney’s approach to Obamacare, apparently. When asked about getting rid of it, which he previously pledged to do on “Day 1” of a Romney presidency; Mr. Romney backtracked. Now, he’s apparently committed to just keeping the popular stuff. (Specifically, prohibiting exclusions by insurers based on pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to keep coverage under their parents’ policies.)
Now, promising all of the goodies and none of the pain is hardly new and hardly unique to the Romney-Ryan campaign. But, when they claim to be the party that will talk to us about the hard truths and be budget balancing deficit hawks, the age old technique is jarring.
Sounds a lot like the whole “we’ll read the bill after we pass it” routine the dems played out during health care reform debate.
What’s good for the goose…
I enjoyed your spirited defense of the Ryan budget.
The specifics you went into are where you really got to me. Delving into, and explaining, all of that nuanced policy was really what pushed me over the edge from “this is a troll comment” to “wow, this guy has substantive things to say that helped me to become more informed.”
Thanks for taking the time to educate us, Inaccurate False-Equivalency Fairy!
Yeah, and Obama thinks “you didn’t build that.” This crop of opponents is good at taking single lines out of longer statements and repeating them ad nauseum; imputing a meaning that the speaker didn’t intend and can’t fairly be read to intend when the full statements are considered.
Pelosi’s remark was a reference to passing the Senate bill and having an actual, concrete piece of legislation before it was possible to debunk what opponents were already saying was in the bill. There was no passed bill yet, so you couldn’t point to line and page to tell critics “here’s what it says,” or to make critics show you where it says something they were claiming.
For example, when the opponents were making claims about abortion or death panels, it was impossible to prove a negative; particularly when there was no actual piece of legislation in front of the House of Representatives.
Of course, the “you didn’t build that” line out of which the Republican National Convention made a centerpiece was an even better example of this tactic. Obama made the very unremarkable point that, if you have a successful business, you owe your success in some part to things like teachers and roads and bridges without which you’d never be where you are today. Hardly the stuff of outrage; let alone something you should make the centerpiece of your convention.
That’s because intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, and a complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are necessary prerequisites to becoming a conservative.
“Now, he’s apparently committed to just keeping the popular stuff. (Specifically, prohibiting exclusions by insurers based on pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to keep coverage under their parents’ policies.)”
No, he already took that one back. It lasted an hour or two, though.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/mitt-romney-obamacare-preexisting-condition.php?ref=fpa
The article Doug links to is interesting. And the description of the Function 920 Allowances is “priceless.” You might as well be referring to something as occult as Hanger 18 or Area 51.
“So here is our commitment. We are not going to duck the tough issues and kick the can down the road. We are going to lead and fix this mess in Washington. And we are not going to spend the next four years blaming people from the last four years. We’re going to take responsibility and get the job done, reach across the aisle and fix this problem, get people back to work, create jobs, growth.”
Paul (insert gerund dropping the “g” that rhymes with his last name and is a synonym for mendacity) Ryan