According to the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein,
“The occasion of Rep. Paul Ryan winning an award for fiscal
responsibility has left a lot of people wondering where the Paul
Ryan who seemed to care so much for fiscal responsibility has
gone.”
Ignoring the glaring non sequitur (why would people start to
doubt Ryan’s fiscal responsibility just as he’s won an award for
fiscal responsibility?), I notice that I haven’t run into too many
of these people Klein’s worried about. Of course at any given time
there are a handful of liberal bloggers whining about Ryan, but as
far as “lots” of former fans newly heartbroken over Ryan’s fiscal
nonchalance go, it’s a pretty quiet crowd.
In fact I think it may be a party of one — Klein himself. The
reason this group is so small is because its (his) complaint
against Ryan is nonsensical:
Since winning the election, the GOP — with Ryan’s support —
has increased budget deficits and policy uncertainty alike. They
chose a temporary tax cut rather than a permanent one, and also
sought the repeal of the health-care bill and a continuing
resolution rather than real appropriations bills. All of that
increased policy uncertainty. As for the deficit, the tax deal
increased it by $850 billion. That’s larger than any other single
piece of legislation signed by Obama.
I guess that the GOP “chose” a temporary tax cut in the sense
that Democrats “chose” to temporarily cut taxes for the highest
earners. But it would be more accurate to note that the tax deal
was a compromise, and that if Ryan and the GOP could have made the
Bush tax cuts permanent, there is absolutely no doubt that they
would have.
And the claim that the tax deal increased the deficit by $850
billion makes sense in a meaningless, litigious way, but then again
Paul Ryan has never been in favor of raising taxes, so he’s
certainly been consistent on that point.
Unfortunately, Klein goes on:
Ryan will point out that the real budget problem is health-care
driven spending, and he’s got a long-term plan to deal with that.
People can argue about whether his Roadmap, which operates by the
principle of “we simply lower the cap and then those things go
down,” will actually work. But fiscal responsibility isn’t measured
by what you want. It’s measured by what you do.
If Ryan could “do” the Roadmap, he would. In fact he’s trying to
“do” everything he can to make it law.
The reality is that every Democrat who voted to cut Medicare by
more than $500 billion and raise taxes by more than $400 billion in
order to offset the cost of the health-care bill cast a tougher
vote for fiscal responsibility than Ryan has.
It’s not true that a vote for Obamacare was a vote for fiscal
responsibility, even assuming that those Medicare cuts and taxes
will materialize, which is a big assumption. It is true that, by
those assumptions, Obamacare would cut the deficit. But that’s not
the same thing as fiscal responsibility. Given the nation’s looming
fiscal problems, the new spending that Obamacare mandates is
fiscally irresponsible, whether or not Obamacare cuts the
deficit on paper.
By the way, no one cares how many awards for fiscal
responsibility Ryan gets. If he leads Congress toward sustainable
long-term budgets but fails to win an award ever again, you won’t
hear me complaining.
SamF| 1.10.11 @ 8:26PM
I understand Ryan has not gotten his policy objectives, and Klein is speaking in a vacuum..but:
"And the claim that the tax deal increased the deficit by $850 billion makes sense in a meaningless, litigious way"
What does not mean???? The tax cut deal didn't raise the deficit? How does that math work?
Jake from Baltimore| 1.11.11 @ 8:19AM
It means that only in Washington can someone try to argue that allowing citizens to keep a greater share of THEIR OWN MONEY somehow increases the deficit. In reality, the problem isn't government revenue, it's government's runaway spending. That's the variable of the deficit equation Ryan and others are trying to change. To argue that decreasing revenue automatically increases the deficit assumes a never-ending upward trajectory of government spending, a premise Ryan (correctly) doesn't assume.
Robert Bell| 1.11.11 @ 10:53AM
"To argue that decreasing revenue automatically increases the deficit assumes a never-ending upward trajectory of government spending, a premise Ryan (correctly) doesn't assume"
No it doesn't. It is simply the definition of a deficit, i.e. the excess of spending over revenue. Consider two situations:
1. The government collects $110 in revenues and spends $110, then cuts taxes by $10.
2. The government collects $100 in revenues and spends $100, then raises spending by $10.
Are you arguing that the fiscal position of the government would be different in these two cases?
PattyMor| 1.10.11 @ 9:27PM
Well the hands have barely gone down after the swearing in cermonies and already the drum beat from the Left starts up about the budget numbers. This is after Miss Nancy and her cohorts ran up 5 Trillion in debt in four years.
The Left has no honor and no ethics. I would not
vote Demon Party ever again. Who can trust them? They are spend-a-holics with YOUR money. Then some adults have to come along and clean up the mess. We have NO room to maneuver anymore. The budget numbers are dire and we are running out of time. We are soon coming to the point that we can no longer service the interest on the debt.
They have taken a great nation and ran it in the toilet. Deep in debt. Schools that don't educate. Jails full of minorities. Regulations that strangle anything productive.
SamF| 1.11.11 @ 7:30PM
Jake. I understand you would like to see the spending decreased. But on the pure math of it, if you take in less income, and spend the same, that, be definition increase the deficit (spending-revenue)
Patty: Medicare Part D, Iraq war, and tax cuts. That was the legacy of the last set of GOPers. They have no more fiscal discipline that Democrats do.