If you know anything of substance about Paul Ryan, it’s that the Republican vice presidential pick knows his numbers.
A Washington Post profile today by Michael Leahy (8/20/12) tells us:
He got his start on Capitol Hill as a 19-year-old intern working in the mailroom of Sen. Bob Kasten (R-Wis.). That led in time to positions on congressional committees and habits he hasn’t broken since, including a staffer’s zeal for voracious research, for charts and PowerPoint presentations, and a facility for budget numbers that he recites with a savant’s glee.
As if that weren’t clear enough, we’re told later that he exhibits “a professorial absorption with fiscal issues.”
The New York Times has been saying the same. In a piece by Michael Barbaro (8/19/12) detailing how the GOP ticket mates got to know each other, readers learned:
But in Mr. Ryan, Mr. Romney saw shades of himself: a clean-cut numbers guy who favored the cold-eyed truths of actuarial tables over ideology for its own sake.
That article also described a Ryan/Romney meeting as “a pair of policy mavens out-geeking each other over esoterica.”
And another Times article by Annie Lowrey (8/18/12) got the scoop on Ryan’s depth from presumably knowledgeable sources:
The reputation for wonkiness is merited, people close to Mr. Ryan said. He goes home with a stack of white papers. He calls economists when he has questions about their budget projections or ideas.
Consider those assessments, and then read Paul Krugman‘s column today (8/20/12): “Mr. Ryan’s true constituency is the commentariat,” he writes. “Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined the ticket.”
Krugman goes on:
So if we add up Mr. Ryan’s specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts–with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families. Over all, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around two-and-a-half trillion dollars.
Yet Mr. Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. What’s the basis for that claim?
Well, he says that he would offset his tax cuts by “base broadening,” eliminating enough tax deductions to make up the lost revenue. Which deductions would he eliminate? He refuses to say–and realistically, revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible.
At the same time, he asserts that he would make huge further cuts in spending. What would he cut? He refuses to say.
What Mr. Ryan actually offers, then, are specific proposals that would sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his overall plan into deficit reduction.
If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is.
Remember: Reporters are the ones who just give you the facts. People like Krugman have opinions.
This recalls one of my favorite Ryan-in-the-media moments, courtesy of New York‘s Jonathan Chait (4/29/12). Ryan was being profiled by ABC News‘ Jonathan Karl, and as Chait reported, Ryan
awed a swooning reporter by opening up the budget to a random page and fingered a boondoggle. The item Ryan pointed to was the Obama administration’s reform of the student-loan industry. “Direct loans–this is perfect,” Ryan said. “So direct loans, that’s new spending on autopilot, that had no congressional oversight, and it gave the illusion that they were cutting spending.”
Except that that’s not what that was at all. The item in question was actually a money-saving reform of the student loan program. Instead of acting as a middleman for banks, the federal government would be dealing with loans directly. This was bad news for banks, which were making a tidy profit doing nothing much. As Chait put it:
The banks lobbied fiercely to protect their gravy train. Among the staunchest advocates of those government-subsidized banks was…Paul Ryan, who fought to protect bank subsidies that many of his fellow Republicans deemed too outrageous to defend. In 2009, Obama finally eliminated the guaranteed-lending racket. It could save the government an estimated $62 billion, according to the CBO.
Again: The ABC report that failed to expose Ryan’s non-wonkery followed the rules of neutral, just-the-facts journalism–at least, that’s how the rules are too often interpreted by corporate media. It is precisely that journalistic approach that tells you, over and over, that Paul Ryan is a wonk.
JB
I’ve witten this elsewhere; it’s appropriate here. The basic economic model Ryan and so many others work with reduces to several basic tenets: (1) property is a fundamental right; (2) everyone benefits when the propertied classes do well (remember Reagan’s trickle-down economics? Well it’s the same thing with Ryan and and so many others); (3) derugulation is good (this is often packaged as states rights–a divide-and-conquer approach; we see this idea at work when some want to dismantle the EPA or Medicaid and throw it back on the states; and (4) a free market is equated with free will and individual rights/freedom. This simple economic model has broad appeal because of it’s simplicity. Basically it comes down to, hey, you working people must learn to live within your means. You can’t expect the government to take care of you.We are therefore going to cut all sorts of social services. What this simple economic model does not explain is over production, the increasing concentration of wealth (and power) into ever fewer hands, the falling rate of profit, planned obsolescene, a constant need for capitalism to expand, inflation, and the boom-bust cylce of capital. These are inherent to this economic system and not the result of bad policy choices. Nonetheless, this simple model has broad appeal–like a whiteboard–to many people. We are headed into some very rough waters ahead of us.
Doug Latimer
“Wonk” …
There are far more pertient four-letter words to apply here, aren’t there?
Roger Bloyce
Doug L: Do you really feel a need always to get here first with a stupifyingly inane comment? These are serious issues, innit?
doug
;
;
Doug Latimer
Roger, do you really have an overwhelming compulsion to behave like an utter ass?
It’s a rhetorical question.
Yes, this shit is serious.
Dead serious.
And I treat it as such.
Check my blog, if you’re so inclined.
That’s an incorrect use of “innit”, by the way.
And you misspelled “stupefyingly” …
But I’ll chalk that up to careless proofreading. I can certainly empathize.
Roger Bloyce
I’m pleased to see that you consider FAIR serious, and I do think your heart is in the right place on the issues dealt with here. But Jesus, what relentlessly unfunny comments you make here, almost always the first (do you stay up nights to do that?) and why you see this site as a free ad for your own site beats me.
Doug Latimer
Roger, there’s a simple solution to your aversion to my comments.
Scroll … past … them.
Unless you have a deep streak of masochism.
In which case, far be it from me to deny your right to sexual expression.
As I’ve been on this board for years, and yours is the only objection to my presence that I can recall offhand (disagreement is another matter), I’m going to make what I think is a reasonable assumption.
That being, that for some unknown reason, with all the shit going down in the world, your choosing to piss on someone who’s done you no harm, and who you say has his heart in the right place …
Is indicative of sorely misplaced priorities, and you might do well to examine precisely what place your heart inhabits.
And if you’re hoping that snarking on me will change my habits …
Dream on.
(One last thing.
Somebody’s god only knows how many posts I’ve made here, and the number of times I’ve mentioned my blog could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Possibly one missing a finger or two.
That said, it would appear someone at FAIR deems it of interest, as it is included in the blog list in the right margin.
You’ll forgive me if I put more stock in their opinion than yours.)
Glenn
Hey Doug,
You always have the expletive **** and the grunt of disapproval right where I would have put them.
You’re OK by me.
Doug Latimer
Much obliged, Glenn. I appreciate your having my back.
I don’t know what Roger’s problem is, but I think it’s symptomatic of what exists among many groups that claim to want to change things for the better, but their external rhetoric often doesn’t match their internal dynamics among their members.
That’s been my experience, at least. I’m currently working with some vets who are fed up with this sort of ‘tude in their org, and are working outside of it to get things accomplished.
You got to walk the talk
Or all it is is talk
Innit?
Roger Bloyce
I think Roger’s problem is that he would like to see serious comment here and not cutersy wordplay that does nothing to expand on the subject at hand.
Doug Latimer
Some people’s kids …
JeepyT
Rodger, Doug; get a room.
Ryan is a Donk!
Greg
Well, anybody who thinks Paul Krugman is a journalist is a wonk. As is Doug Latimer.Always firstest with the bestist. And I notice if not first, usually no comment at all.
gloriana casey
Hi Doug Latimer:
I think you are very funny, truthful, and necessary, so I love your comments.
Yoram Gat
Doug, you have my vote as well.
CCrown
Well, I’m one of those people who Doug can count on his one hand. He mentioned his blog to me after I took offense to how he phrased something a while back. As I see it, his purpose was to clarify his commitment to progressive causes, not to gain a following. And God help us if we followed someone who advocated what we did anyway!! If we can’t even respect and try to understand someone with the same message as we have then is it no wonder we keep losing ground to the likes of people like R & R and their following tribe. Doug certainly has his “way of being in this world” as Dr. Phil would say. Don’t we all? Being first to reply is not a crime of ego either, he is interested and alert. I see nothing wrong with that either. After I calmed down from our little tiff, I did read more of what Doug had to say. High horses are not conducive to greater understanding of either our fellow humans or the issues of the day.
Doug Latimer
Gloriana, Yoram and CCrown, I very much appreciate your support. Regardless of what some may think, I am trying to bring something useful to this site, and it’s good to know that it achieves that purpose with you.
I will try to remain worthy of your respect.
Greg, I’m not sure whether to take your remarks in the same vein. Would you care to clarify?
On the question of post placement, I imagine I’m usually first because I check the blog relatively early in the day, and come back to it on my “rounds” on a regular basis, so the odds favor that outcome.
But regardless, if I have something to say, I’ll do so no matter the order of comment.
If your statement is meant to imply some sort of hubris or self-promotion, you’re barking up the wrong birch, bubula.
Gregory Lynn Kruse
Children, please!
Night-Gaunt
Doug just ignore the criticisms and continue on. So much unneeded verbiage here in defense and attacks. Best to just soldier on and avoid getting mired.
As for Ryan his wonkishness is just as false as his numbers for his budget. And just as useless.
michael e
Ryan will be the next VP of the United States.He will be many miles above Joe Biden.I notice in these blogs no-one even compares the two.It is just Ryan against…..RYAN.Funny actually.
Ryan has a few ideas to present to the new president for consideration.It will be a lively debate I am sure with our fellow Americans and their representatives on the left -IF Mitt takes any of them to heart.We will then come to (and implement)some new ideas of how to put this country back on a paying basis.We will stop borrowing from China,and printing money in the dark of night.We will put the breaks on Federal spending.All the things that Obamas own economic council say must be done.Obama just chose to ignore them.Things will get better all around and yes…taxes will come down as every economic indicator rises.No excuses about “oh we did not know how bad it was”.We will fix what is broke and take off into the stratosphere.This country wont spring back….it will leap.The alternative is …well 4 more years of Joe Biden and his side kick.
Jamie H
“Being first to reply is not a crime of ego either, he is interested and alert. I see nothing wrong with that either…”
Ageed. I occasionally disagree with something Doug says (e.g., I’m inclined to be more forgiving of Obama’s shortcomings cuz O’s way better than ANY Republican alternative), but he always adds substantive comments here, and the fact that he does it with some word-play, which I really like, is just — gravy!
Bob C.
I’m a libertarian on all things except economic policy, and for the couple of years I’ve been reading this blog, I find Doug Latimer’s comments the most intelligent, cogent, and illuminating to be found here. I’m now a regular reader of his blog which is equally well done. I don’t share all of his ideology, but I now have a better understanding of our differences after perusing his writings. Keep up the great work Doug. To hell with the trolls who just don’t get it.
Doug Latimer
Night-Gaunt, it’s certainly not my bliss to respond to such mean-spiritedness, but I feel obligated to do so when my integrity, rather than my analysis, is questioned.
That other folks have backed me up is immensely gratifying, and humbling.
Jamie H and Bob C., I thank you kindly for your efforts in that regard. I wasn’t in the best spirits to begin the day, but yours and the others’ appreciation for my efforts has lifted them considerably.
Doug Latimer
And Bob, I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of libertarianism. I find that for many, it’s an attempt at an ideological justification for selfishness and a lack of empathy.
Do you feel that as well?
But perhaps we should “get a room”, as one wit advised above, and discuss the subject elsewhere? If you think that the better choice, my email add’s in the blog intro.
Frank Moraes
I’m glad you added the Chait article. He has covered Ryan really well over the last couple of year. I recommend his blog. In fact, Krugman and Chait are the first and second blogs I read every day. Sorry FAIR–although you are in the top 10.
Jamie H
“And Bob, I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of libertarianism. I find that for many, it’s an attempt at an ideological justification for selfishness and a lack of empathy.”
I’m not Bob :o) but I want to weigh in on this. That is exactly how I see libertarianism. I used to joke that libertarians were just Republicans who wanted to legalize marijuana (among a few other minor desires). I realize it’s more complicated than that, but your statement sums things up pretty well.
michael e
And Jamie how do you see Liberals?People who are not selfish?I think they are very giving….with other peoples possessions!Use Obama as a poster boy.He would redistribute wealth under the iron hand of his government( if he could.)Yet personally he has never given anything to charity.Same with his VP.Then you have those horrible monsters like Bush and Ryan,Sarah P and Mitt ,who advocate keeping government out of your pocketbook,and yet………have always given generously to charity.The word is Hypocrite.
As far as libertarians I have a lot of good friends who are.The way I see it is this…..Most people in this country are conservative in their value systems.Center right I’d call it.That is the “stock” for the soup.Put in a little pepper(liberal) flying in from the hard left where government rules with an Iron hand, telling all how they will live their lives.Owning and controlling the keystones of our society.Then add some salt(libertarian).Where government controls nothing, past what the constitution specifically allows.I think within that mix are people who try to find a balance.I think Mitt who has led in a very liberal area ,will be good at walking that tightrope and getting the best out of the situation.Ron Paul would be horrible at it.Obama is also a disaster.Lets face it …Hilary was a far better choice.At least she was qualified and pragmatic.
Doug Latimer
Jamie, it is more complicated than that, as I think Bob’s views attest.
At the same time, the Ron Paul variety extols a self-centered individualism and “every person for themselves” mentality that is a death sentence for the planet and its people.
We’ll sink or stay afloat together. I’d rather that be realized as a moral imperative, but if it’s merely an enlightened sense of self-preservation that motivates some, fine.
Here’s a bucket.
Start bailing.
Doug Latimer
Jamie, if you and others could stick “Doug” or “Latimer” somewhere in your reply, I’d be most appreciative. I search on “doug” or “latim” for responses to my posts, and I don’t want to miss any.
Well … some I wouldn’t mourn missing too much. -g-