In his New York Times column on Monday (8/9/10), headlined “The Flimflam Man,” Paul Krugman took aim at Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who has emerged as the GOP’s big thinker on budgets:
One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: As long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic.
Krugman explains that Ryan’s plan—big tax cuts, big cuts in spending—would actually not slash the deficit at all; it would make it bigger. And his tax “cuts” would really be tax hikes for everyone but the most well-off.
Krugman slammed “self-styled centrists” who”want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense…. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.”
Now turn to today’s Times, and a piece from Matt Bai. The subject is the very same Paul Ryan, whom Bai calls the “Republican star of the moment” thanks to his budget blueprint, which is termed “unusually austere.”
Bai references Krugman’s criticism, but then tells readers:
Let’s leave aside for now the debate over the viability of the road map, which, as a practical matter, doesn’t stand a chance of being enacted as is, anyway. The more pertinent question is whether Mr. Ryan is the kind of guy who just wants to make a point—or whether his road map represents the starting point in what could be a serious negotiation about entitlements and spending.
Well, why is that the pertinent question? The roadmap is presented as Ryan’s ideas about what the government should do. Why would you ignore what it says and pretend that it represents a possible “starting point” for doing something different?
Because apparently Obama needs a ” useful nemesis on the right,” Ryan’s not “blindly partisan,” he’s friendly with some Democrats—and, perhaps most importantly:
Mr. Ryan appears to be the rare kind of guy who actually dreams of making Social Security solvent, rather than of using the issue to bludgeon opponents or get himself on television. While his own proposal for private investment accounts might be a deal-breaker for the White House, he identifies Social Security as an area where there is “clearly room for compromise” and says of his road map generally, “I’m trying to get the discussion to an adult level.”
As Tim Fernholz pointed out at Tapped (8/12/10), though, Ryan’s plan would do nothing to improve Social Security’s financial outlook:
This Center for Budget and Policy Priorities analysis notes that “because the plan would divert large sums from Social Security to private accounts, it would leave the program facing insolvency in about 30 years, just as under current law.” A warning, then, to Bai: Appearances can be deceiving.
Krugman took to his Times blog to critique this Times piece, which is worth a read.
Krugman is an absolute idiot! Peter Hart is an idiot! Paul Ryan is an honest and good man, trying to make our country better. These fools are affraid of him so they lie about his plans. Krugman needs to check his sources. FOOLS!!
L.H.
Have you considered making arguments rather than spewing epithets? Come on! If you disagree with a point, tell us why you disagree. Cite sources when you can. Don’t misrepresent the other side’s argument. Avoid flaming another poster because you see things differently. This doesn’t take great intelligence–it’s just good etiquette.
L. H. Olzwaldski: Please back up your assertion that Krugman is an idiot, as is Hart. Oh, and a fool too. Why do you think that? They have detailed why Ryan’s plan is bogus; please tell us why you think Ryan is an ‘honest and good man’. Evidence, please.
Unlike Obama, Ryan’s Democratic opponent in this year’s race, John Heckenlively, is an actual socialist. He has edited a couple of issues of the Wisc SP newsletter and has attended their annual picnic to boot, including this year’s. He is ready for the charge, will point out Milwaukee’s 3 socialist mayors, etc. Should the Ryan camp try to make hay of this, it MAY mean national news coverage…
–Mark M Giese
a socialist
I used to think FAIR had something to do with reasonable solutions to problems with hack journalists… now I see it’s just a twitter fan club for the left. There’s nothing Fair involved, save that time a few months back where they acknowledged the NYT was copping news from the Journal… on a regular basis… WITHOUT CITATIONS! Now you fiends tout a lack of citations from readers? I know several NY Times writers and I wouldn’t let them cover a backyard BBQ for fear of abuse of “fair” journalistic practices. That paper has been transmogrified into something about as enlightening as the Weekly World News… The sorry thing about the leftist media (it really is, so don’t come on here and say “the Times is all about FAIR journalism!”) is that they’ll tear anyone to shreds if they say word one about the current left majority or its (lack of) political practice. Make no mistake: there will be no leftist majority (save major news sources) come November, so just keep asking other people for citations while ignoring the fact that you CAN’T FIND YOUR OWN! And when you can’t, don’t forget, you can just blame Bush like Glorious leader B.O.
PS Check the categories on the right-hand side of this page… under “Newspapers” they list only the LA Times, the NY Times, USA Today (COME ON!!!!! YOU HAVE TO BE IN DIAPERS TO READ THAT GARBAGE!), and the Washington Post — where’s the Journal? It’s actually the most-read major news source in the country, considering the fact that the Times so often snags its headlines for themselves… And FAIR LEAVES IT OUT! Fair can count me out — I’m done with this propagandist organisation!
Nevermind – just realized the reason there’s no section for the Journal is that FAIR has nothing on ’em worth mentioning!
The horrible thought is these hate-spewing monsters (like LHO and MBC) will grow up and get the vote.
perhaps i’m on the super secret double down version of the fair website, but here’s what’s listed on the right side of this page…
newspapers (153)
* L.A. Times (5)
* New York Times (92)
* USA Today (9)
* Wall Street Journal (8)
* Washington Post (49)
ps
mcpaper’s website gets more traffic than both the lat site and the wapo site [hard to believe, but true]
Social Security has no relation to deficits. The fund is the largest in the world, entirely self-funded by a % of your earnings. It should be no surprise that wall st. can’t wait to get its corrupt hands on the largest fund in the world. 40% of retirees are entirely delpendent upon it. It’s clear that this Ryan has his own gov’t pension despite his misguided proposals about the most successful of all gov’t programs. Wouldn’t it be more to the point to cut gov’t expenditures like war funding, pentagon funding that can’t be accounted for, since these are monies that affect the budget deficit? wake up people or you will find yourselves without the money you actually own going to war funding.
MGC Says:
…FAIR … it’s just a twitter fan club for the left.
Mark:
FAIR is left of center but not far left in my view.
MGC Says:
… the current left majority or its (lack of) political practice. Make no mistake: there will be no leftist majority (save major news sources) …
Mark:
Current leftist majority??
Like Obama as socialist?
Major news sources only get as left as the center — when they do at all. How often is Chomsky, for instance, quoted in these sources?
g lachner has demonstrated that he is well informed about Social Security. Unlike the fellow who is so proud of Paul Ryan that he calls Paul Krugman, a highly respected, Nobel Prize winner an idiot. If that fellow had half the brains of Paul Krugman, he would be a genius. Alas, he does not. Republican appolgists are great at name calling because they have nothing else to support their false beliefs.
Sad to see you go, MGC, but by God, your reasoning and observational skills are as sound as a Pound. You’re a genius, and your skills are sorely needed, I’ll bet, over at Comrade Beck’s website. Go now.
You know, when I read a love letter (or in this case portions of it) like the one written to Mr. Ryan by Mr. Bai, I tear up a little bit, especially when I know or suspect that the love will go unrequited. Mr. Bai, if you or a member of your posse are reading this, don’t kiss that man on the first date! As Mr. Krugman pointed out, his kind are all the same . . . .
The resource-rich, macho Right tends to get carried away with nonsensical communication. It has the power and feels no need to convince those it often addresses – by way of debate, argument and propaganda. Telling us, for the umpteenth time, that tax cuts will fix everything and that we don’t want deficits, when tax cuts not only cause deficits (which are a problem in the U.S., but not everywhere), is a perfect example of the attitude shown by uncaring rightists. They are not going to talk seriously to us about the serious problems we face because their intentions are to continue partnering with the special, capitalist, interests who profit by cost cutting, which is at the root of so many of the problems facing all nations in this neoliberal era. As William Greider noted (in “One World, Ready Or Not” I think), cost cutting (wages, health & safety costs, other regulations) was (for a time anyway) America’s secret (sort of) weapon in it’s pursuit of a strong economy. In other words, Elites’ idea of a strong economy is one that works for a minority, namely the minority of exploiters and the comfortable class that benefits from that and will not rock the boat by adding their voice for those calling for social justice and fairness.
As an aside, The mainstream Left (not including Chomsky et al), ‘seems’ to be on the people’s side. It doesn’t talk so much nonsense to us. But then, It needs our support more than the rightists and must talk to us in such a way that it doesn’t alienate us. We, the people, get some benefit from that – truth and facts and intelligible information is always desirable – but we must, in my view, strive mightily to see through the talk of purported allies in order to determine intentions. It can be done. And don’t be shocked when you find that allies are not allies and don’t be cowed by the fact that you seem to be alone in concluding that you are alone. Betrayal is everywhere today and doesn’t only come from those who don’t care, and hide therefore, that they do it.
Lots of typos in my above post. Sorry. Let’s revisit the first and last statements. That’ll be enough.
‘It has the power and feels no need to convince those it often addresses â┚¬“ by way of debate, argument and propaganda – with reasoning, dialog and references to information that persuaded it’s members’, is how I meant to say that.
And ‘Betrayal is everywhere today and doesn’t only come from those who don’t care, and don’t hide therefore, that they do it’, is what I meant to say.