The GOP, The Generals And "Waste"

April 10th, 2012

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) recently was forced to apologize for portraying the Pentagon leadership as liars on matters of the budget. 

The problem he had with their numbers was that they were lower than his preferred spending levels over the next decade.

The fracas drew attention to the hollowness of the GOP mantra that we should always "listen to the generals." So often have we heard this phrase that Ryan's blunder was an extremely important exposure of the Republican party's inherent hypocrisy on the issue of waste.

Keying off of Gordon Adams' take on the affair last week, Stan Collender fires with both barrels (pardon the expression):

"In the now closer-to-four-than-three decades I've been involved with the federal budget in some way, it has never ceased to amaze me that congressional Republicans are able to detect waste, fraud, abuse and overspending from a mile away when it involves a domestic program but are completely deaf, dumb and blind to the same thing when it involves the Pentagon. Why is it, for example, that an extra sandwich in a school lunch program is waste while an extra missile that will never be used and wasn't requested by DOD is vital to national security?"

There is no rational, much less decent, explanation. It's simply how these bastards operate.

Politifact's Problem with... Facts

Dec 23rd, 2011

What's in a name?

Let's say I present a plan to eventually replace every car in America with a donkey. Then, let's say that my plan requires that donkeys are no longer to be referred to as "donkeys." From the moment the plan is completed, all donkeys must be referred to as "cars."

Paul Ryan's Little Ethics Problem

June 22nd, 2011

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been called "a very serious man." Ross Douthat lauded his "honesty." Peter Wehner credited Ryan with restoring the GOP as a "party of ideas." David Brooks called him "courageous." The National Review said that Rep. Ryan was doing nothing less than "pointing the way back toward a republic."

With all due respect, it appears they might have hitched their carts to the wrong horse. This is putting it very politely.

From The Daily Beast:
"The financial disclosure report Ryan filed with Congress last month and made public this week shows he and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan's budget plan."

"Ryan’s office says the congressman wasn’t thinking about himself or the oil companies that lease his land when he drafted the budget blueprint that extended the energy tax breaks. “These are properties that Congressman Ryan married into,” spokesman Kevin Seifert said. “It’s not something he has a lot of control over.”

Nonetheless, the properties have been a lucrative investment for Ryan and his wife, earning them as much as $117,000 last year, and $60,000 the year before, his personal financial disclosure reports show. Overall, Ryan, 41, listed assets worth between $590,000 and $2.5 million, putting him in the top third of the richest members of the House."

An ethical man would have already divested personal holdings that directly benefit from his own legislation. Period. But not Ryan... He apparently thinks this isn't "serious."

One More Time...

June 1st, 2011

The more the establishment Right doubles down on The Ryan Plan, the more I will continue to point out it's ridiculousness, it's corruption and it's plutocratic cruelty...
(via)

Chart by Jarrod Barretto. Sources: CBPP, CBO

At The Precipice

May 20th, 2011

Hat tip to The Dish for this. Sully finds it detestable and gave it one of his "Moore Award" nominations. I think it is simply a little gallows humor mixed with the truth.

Here We Go Again

May 6th, 2011

One more time. The Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) plan is still just as ridiculous today as it was when it came out a month ago. It's still based on massive giveaways to the rich, it's still absent any meaningful defense reform and as Bruce Bartlett notes in the Financial Times, its implementation would still raise the total federal debt by over 5 trillion dollars in the next decade. Which means it's still provably dishonest. It also makes Ryan's hard line on the debt ceiling inexplicable.

From Bartlett's piece:

"At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the federal budget deficit didn’t just suddenly arise solely because of actions taken by Democrats over the last two years. As a recent report from Pew makes clear, the bulk of it results from a recession that began in December 2007 and actions taken by Republicans when they were in power: huge tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and new spending programs such as Medicare Part D. Furthermore, Republicans themselves admit that even if their budget plans were enacted in every detail and spending is slashed, the government would still run deficits of more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years; that is what would result from the budget drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, which all but 4 Republicans in the House voted for on April 15.

For the record, these are the deficits that House Republicans officially support (fiscal years): 2012: $995 billion; 2013: $698 billion; 2014: $489 billion; 2015: $431 billion; 2016: $478 billion; 2017: $407 billion; 2018: $378 billion; 2019: $415 billion; 2020: $405 billion; and 2021: $391 billion.

To vote for $5 trillion in additional deficits – not to mention all of the legislation that got us to today’s deficit – and then oppose allowing the Treasury to borrow funds to cover the lost revenue from tax cuts and the spending Congress enacted into law is nothing but reckless grandstanding."

It's not merely reckless, it's outright dangerous.

Total Lack Of Surprise

May 4th, 2011

Hats off to Johnathan Cohn for his piece at The New Republic. The opener is pure money:

"It’s becoming pretty clear how Republicans plan to defend their budget. They’re going to lie about it."

The breakdown:

"The cuts in the Affordable Care Act hit the providers and producers of health care more than the consumers, at least directly, and include changes to the delivery of medical care that will, with any luck, make it possible for people to get better, more efficient health care even as it costs less. The Republican budget actually includes most of these same cuts for the first ten years, but then puts almost the entire onus for cost-cutting on individual beneficiaries via the vouchers.

Do Rubio and his colleagues care that they are completely distorting reality? Do they even realize it? Your guess is as good as mine. And quite possibly theirs."

Read the whole thing HERE

David Frum On Paul Ryan's Bad Math

April 27th, 2011
Our previous dissections of the Path To Poverty can be found HERE and HERE

The numbers in the Ryan Path To Poverty still just don't add up. I have pointed out (along with just about every non-elected Republican who has actually read the thing) the absurdity of the Heritage numbers in particular. Rather than respond to these revelations as an alarm bell, many members of Rep. Ryan's fanclub have doubled down on it. I am not the only one who thinks this is nuts.

David Frum writes:

"Well, we all sometimes get our math wrong. But here's the strange thing: the invalidation of Heritage's job predictions has had no impact whatsoever on Republican advocacy of the Ryan plan.

Suppose I presented you with a plan to land an astronaut on Mars. You check my numbers and discover a mistake: my trajectory will instead send the astronaut hurtling into outer space. If I answer, "Well let's use that trajectory anyway," wouldn't you conclude that I was less than totally committed to the Mars mission? That perhaps I had some other goal in mind instead?"

Indeed. 

The First Consequence Of The Ryan Plan

April 18th, 2011
You can read our critique of the Ryan plan's tax proposals HERE and defense position HERE

ADDITION: My readers made great points after I posted this. Some of them have been included HERE

It's not just our Nobel winners like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz who are appalled by the supposedly "serious" Path To Poverty. Many on the right who actually study numbers for a living such as former Reagan OMB Director David Stockman, arch-conservative economist and former George W. Bush advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin as well as Libertarian Tyler Cowen have pointed to its major flaws. The Economist went so far as to call Ryan a liar.

So it was with interest that I watched very little comment from either Moody's or Standard & Poor's regarding the much ballyhooed pamphlet. It seemed clear that the organizations were waiting for a response from the President and the Democrats. Along with the rest of us, they got one last week. S&P stayed largely mum but Moody's liked what they heard:

From Bloomberg 4/13/2011:
"President Barack Obama’s plan to cut $4 trillion in cumulative deficits within 12 years may be a “positive” for the nation’s credit quality and mark a reversal in the budget debate, according to Moody’s Investors Service."

"Cindy Stroller and Mimi Barker, spokeswomen in New York for Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s, respectively, said the firms couldn’t immediately comment."

The following day, Moody's made some damning observations of the Ryan Plan.

From the Fiscal Times 4/15/2011:

"Economist Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, forecast on Thursday that Ryan’s plan would eliminate 1.7 million jobs in its first two years, with 900,000 jobs lost next year. Other economists were equally dismissive." 

The real debate was set to begin in sober and deliberative earnest. Or at least it should have been.

This congress is unfortunately in the hands of radicals. To hell with a real discussion. They wanted Ryan's neo-Randian visions brought to the floor immediately. By the end of the day's business on Friday and on a strictly party line vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican majority passed the Ryan Plan with only 4 of their members joining a unanimous Democratic opposition. Indeed, a political paper riddled with numerical flights of fancy, riven with extreme ideology and with policies that would transform the entire citizen/government relationship in America was put to a formal vote less than 2 weeks after it was unveiled.

Today, in what I believe is a direct consequence of this partisan gamesmanship, S&P made an announcement:

From Bloomberg 4/18/2011:
"Standard & Poor’s put a "negative" outlook on the long-term AAA credit rating of the U.S., citing a "material risk" the nation’s leaders will fail to deal with rising budget deficits and debt. "We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policy makers might not reach an agreement on how to address medium-and long-term budgetary challenges by 2013," New York-based S&P said today in a report. "If an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns."

The cost to protect against a default by the government and the nation’s banks jumped and stocks declined after the New York-based firm’s statement, which assigns a one-in-three chance that it will lower the U.S. rating in the next two years. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 1.6 percent to 1,298.67 at 12:34 p.m. in New York."

We have been broadsided by the economic equivalent of Scientologists. Just 2 weeks of this particular partisan drive has further damaged our already teetering recovery. Just think what they can do with another 20 months.

Stockman And Sachs On The Ryan Plan

April 16th, 2011

Yup. The Path To Poverty is indeed "absurd."

Maybe Ryan Really IS Through The Looking Glass

April 16th, 2011

In economics there is the theoretical future and the provable past. It's generally wise to base proposals for that future on what we have learned so far. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty is most striking in it's devotion to philosophies that we know to be destructive and ineffectual. Take a look at the cost-benefit analysis across a variety of forms of deficit spending. Make no mistake, the tax cuts called for in the "Path" are deficit spending.

The Ryan plan seems to take these facts and literally flip them. Every proposal he describes as most stimulative has been proven to be the least likely to spur growth. Everything he has targeted for elimination has the greatest immediate benefit to the economy. The problem for Ryan is that he just doesn't like these facts. As Tim Tankersley and Katie O'Donnel of the National Journal observed, the Ryan Plan is predicated on a faith in "bedrock principles of supply-side economics."

Which is how we got here in the first place.

A Note To Angry Readers

April 15th, 2011
Again, you can read just some of the reasons why the Ryan plan is nonsense both HERE and HERE

As my inbox has flooded with defenses of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) "pamphlet" ranging from the spirited to the spiteful, one fact has become abundantly clear; the vast majority of its defenders have not only not read the Ryan plan, they have also not read the CBO analysis or the Heritage analysis. This may not be surprising but it is disappointing.



I know it's asking an awful lot, but unless and until you folks have spent the time reading these documents... you are making fools of yourselves

Here they are. It's not that hard to read them.
The Path To Prosperity

Congressional Budget Office Analysis of the Ryan plan

The Heritage Institute Analysis of the Ryan Plan

Fallows Not Taking "The Path"

April 15th, 2011

James Fallows sees the Ryan plan for what it is. In response to the many talking heads who keep lauding its "seriousness," he responds in the Atlantic:

"1) A plan to deal with budget problems that says virtually nothing about military spending is neither brave nor serious. That would be enough to disqualify it from the "serious" bracket, but there's more.

2) A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny -- or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating.

3) A plan that exempts from future Medicare cuts anyone born before 1957 -- about a quarter of the population, which includes me -- is neither brave nor serious. See "canny or cynical: take your pick" above.

4) A plan to reconcile revenue and spending, which rules out axiomatically any conceivable increase in tax rates, is neither brave nor serious. Rather, it is exactly as brave and serious as some opposite-extreme proposal that ruled out axiomatically any conceivable cut in entitlement spending or discretionary accounts.

5) A plan to reduce the federal deficit by granting big tax reductions to the highest-income Americans, at a time when their tax rates are very low by historic standards and and their share of the national income is extremely high, and when middle-class job creation is our main economic challenge, is neither brave nor serious. See "cynical," above.

6) A plan that identifies rising health-care costs as the main problem in public spending, but avoids altogether the question of how to contain those costs, is neither brave nor serious. This is a longer and more complicated discussion (see below*); but I submit that the more closely anyone looks at the Ryan plan, the less "serious" it will seem on this extremely important front.

7) A plan that reduces, among other things, research on future energy sources and technologies by about 85% may be "brave," but it's also crazy and short-sighted."

Paul's Pout

April 13th, 2011

While perusing some of the reactions on the right to today's Presidential budget address, I came across this little gem from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

From TPM:

"House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) attacked the partisan bent of the speech, then characterized it as "a political broadside from our campaigner in chief."

This is an abject lesson in how to make an ass of one's self. How can we take seriously a critique of the President's proposals as over-politicized when the critique itself resorts to petty political name calling?

The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 2 - Defense

April 11th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker

© copyright 2011 S. Harris

Having examined Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Path To Poverty in some detail, it's been frustrating watching so many rightist partisans and pundits respond by lavishing praise upon its "seriousness." My first critique, focusing on the tax implications alone, argued that it is largely removed from economic science as we know it.


It was satisfying to see Paul Krugman say much the same thing and for the same reasons a few of days later. He does, after all, have a little more experience reading budgets than I do.

"They should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all."

Beckwatch - Paul Ryan WTF?! Edition

April 5th, 2011

As my feeds and inbox were deluged today with Rep Paul Ryan (R-WI) and his Path To Poverty, I came across all kinds of nutty stuff. Nothing was as weird as this. Listen to Glenn Beck and Paul Ryan say "I love you" to one another. Then, hold onto your butts, listen to Beck rationally condemn the plan for not seriously addressing defense waste.

The Paul Ryan Pamphlet Part 1 - Taxes

April 5th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker

My first reaction when I finished reading The Path To Prosperity, Rep Paul Ryan's (R-WI) highly anticipated "budget," was to wonder where the rest of it was. It's like an introduction without a following body of work. The calculated lack of specificity is stunning. It's a buffet of political talking points.

There are certainly many scary charts, spooky graphs and a lot of Neo-Con think-tank phrases. But to call it a "budget" is an insult to arithmetic itself. In fact, at his press conference earlier this afternoon Ryan said it "is not just a budget, it’s a cause." With all due respect, faith doesn't secure the outcome of financial equations.

Let's look at the Ryan scheme:
"Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health care law. Prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President’s budget. Calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses. Lowers tax rates for individuals, businesses and families. Sets top rates for individuals and businesses at 25 percent. Improves incentives for growth, savings, and investment"

Taxes are at their lowest levels in modern history and have been for years. There has been no corresponding expansion of the economy. What's more, the $800 billion in prevented "tax increases" he touts is predicated on the complete repeal of HCR. That is not going to happen. There is no demonstrably broad benefit to the U.S. economy from the hyper-wealthy having a tax rate of 25%. A 10% drop in the corporate rate with not one single loophole singled out for elimination is ridiculous.

We have to substantially raise taxes and soon. I say it. Krugman says it. Reich says it in no uncertain terms. In fact, a majority of Americans say it. And yet, Ryan skips merrily through an alternate reality. 

Ryan actually cites economic projections from the Heritage Foundation as supporting data within the plan itself. The same Heritage Foundation that said "pro growth tax cuts... always create jobs" while arguing for the extension of the disastrous  W Tax Cuts that didn't create jobs. As a matter of fact, the weakest ever post-Depression job creation accompanied that fiscal policy. Of course, that's not what Heritage had projected prior to their initial implementation. Matt Yglesias dug up this gem today.

Heritage  prosperity projections that they insisted would follow passage of the W Tax Cuts...

The entire payroll expansion under W came to 2.3% which is almost six times smaller than the expansion rate under just 4 years of Jimmy Carter! Ryan's plan is a larger dose of the same failed "stimulative policies" which have caused this mess. But by all means, let's assume that Heritage is totally correct... this time.

The subject of our revenue in-stream is carefully packaged alongside political triggers designed to provoke panic:

"As economic growth deteriorates, it becomes harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes, and a vicious cycle ensues. If the nation ultimately experiences a panicked run on its debt, it will be forced to make immediate and painful fiscal adjustments (like the austerity program that has provoked riots in Greece)"

America/Greece comparisons are absurd. They are also dishonest. The crisis in Greece was caused by two principal factors. The first is that their economy was so much smaller than ours and not complexly diversified. The second is that they invested their national treasure heavily in our own under-regulated derivatives markets. These are the same markets that Mr. Ryan doesn't want to "over-regulate."

What actually makes it "harder for the government to raise revenue through taxes," is cutting taxes, allowing rampant loophole abuse and refusing to impose taxes in the first place.

The obvious initial steps towards solving our problems are as follows; Expire the W Tax Cuts, return the highest marginal individual rates to Eisenhower Era levels and set the top corporate tax rate on profits at a flat 15% with no loopholes. 

Describing Ryan's collection of fantasies as Reaganomic nonsense, which I did earlier today, is actually unfair to the Gipper. When President Reagan was confronted with the destructive and unsustainable reality of tax rates that were substantially higher than today's, he signed bills into law which raised them 7 times. 

One must wonder. If Rep. Paul Ryan and his ilk were presented with an actual Reagan budget today, would they portray it as "progressive?"

This "Path" isn't conservatism. It's corporatism. It's less Jefferson than it is Mussolini.

Paul Ryan's Recipe For Misery, cont...

April 4th, 2011

Well, the reactions are flying now that Rep Paul Ryan's anti-middle class hand is tipped.

From Paul Krugman:
"For all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!"

From Ezra Klein:
"In Medicaid’s case, the reform is block-granting. Right now, the federal government shares Medicaid costs with the states. That means their payments increase or decrease with Medicaid’s actual rate of spending. Under a block grant system, that’d stop. They’d simply give states a lump sum at the beginning of the year and that’d have to suffice. And if a recession hits and more people need Medicaid or a nasty flu descends and lots of disabled beneficiaries end up in the hospital with pneumonia? Too bad."

From Ryan Witt:
"Under Ryan’s plan, beginning in 2021, people over 65 would no longer be automatically covered under a government plan. Instead, each senior would be given a voucher with which to purchase their own private health insurance plan.

The problem for seniors is that insurance companies tend to charge older adults more for coverage. The risks for heart disease, strokes, cancer and many other diseases increases dramatically with age. Private insurance companies, unlike the government, must make a profit to continue in operation. Insurance companies only make a profit if they can charge more in premiums than they pay out in claims. Most older adults would not be covered by a group policy since they would no longer be employed. As a result, under the Republican plan, health insurance companies could demand much higher premiums from older adults."

From Jon Perr:
"When Ryan unveiled his Roadmap back in February, as Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias and TPM all noted, privatization of Medicare was the centerpiece. But because the value of Ryan's vouchers fails to keep up with the out-of-control rise in premiums in the private health insurance market, America's elderly would be forced to pay more out of pocket or accept less coverage." 

Uwe Reinhardt made some predictions about this in February:
"Under the defined contribution approach envisaged by the Rivlin-Ryan plan, most of the risk of future health-care cost increases would be shifted onto the shoulders of Medicare beneficiaries. This feature makes the proposal radical."

Tomorrow should be interesting. We'll all be reading the plan itself. Let me just say this in advance; if one of the cornerstones in Ryan's scheme is a permanent extension of the "W Tax Cuts," the whole thing is bullshit.

GOP Budget Insanity, ctd.

Feb 9th, 2011

James R. Horney writes for The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities providing an analysis of the GOP's proposed spending cuts announced last week:

"Under the plan, non-security programs would shrink, on average, by 15.4 percent below current funding under the continuing resolution (which expires on March 4) and 19.4 percent below what President Obama proposed for fiscal year 2011.  Programs and activities that face the risk of such cuts include funding for K-12 education, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Disease Control, and food safety inspections, and a number of programs that serve low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities."

Take a very close look at their plans for defense. Their intention is to raise it. The one department of government which literally misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars just before the 9/11 attacks will get higher funding without any greater oversight. The one government agency which awarded over 280 Billion dollars in contracts between 2007 and 2009 to private contractors convicted of defrauding the American taxpayer is the only body that will have it's purse increased without any new demands for accountability.