JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 16, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Paul Ryan has been saying of President Obama's budget, "What we have is $1.6 trillion in new tax increases, $8.7 trillion in new spending. He's going to be adding $13 trillion to the debt over the course of his budget." Glenn Kessler figures out where these numbers come from. It's staggeringly dishonest:
The problematic figure in Ryan's statement is the claim that the president proposed $8.7 trillion in new spending. In response to a question about how this number was obtained, the Committee staff provided a chart that showed that outlays would be frozen every year for the next 10 years at the 2012 level of $3.729 trillion.
Thus, while in 2021 Obama proposes to spend $5.697 trillion, the Committee would still be spending $3.729 trillion, for a difference of almost $2 trillion. Add up the difference for every year, over 10 years, and it amounts to nearly $8.7 trillion, which the committee calls "new spending."
In other words, the Committee assumed the president needs to freeze all spending, without adjustments for inflation or population growth, for 10 years. Moreover, it makes this assumption for all spending, even mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which need to be changed by law.
Whatever bit of optimism or stretching you find in the administration's budget, nothing comes within an order of magnitude of this kind of dishonesty.
Ryan's reputation as an honest policy wonk is a curious thing. It must owe itself to the total dearth of elected Republicans who can even halfway plausibly bullshit their way through some numbers.
13 comments
But Jon, the gop really would freeze - or even reverse! - spending increases. Honest, they would. If you doubt Ryan's projections, why just look at the last time they had control of both chambers and the executive.
- Tristan
February 16, 2011 at 8:50am
But wait, last time they had control of both chambers and the White House, they STARTED with a balanced budget, then they cut taxes, created deficits, then started two wars, created a financial crisis, over trillion dollar deficits, and... Oh, I see what you did there.
- AllanL5
February 16, 2011 at 8:53am
lmao! :-)
- GSpinks
February 16, 2011 at 9:31am
Unbelievable. These people claim to admire American business. Well, I work in an American business (one of the little, $100B+/yr global ones) at the minor executive level. If I tried to pass off a business case remotely near that dishonest, I'd be laughed out of the room, shortly before being put on the track to early and brutal retirement. Talk about the theory of "the big lie."
- IowaBeauty
February 16, 2011 at 9:32am
The Republicans own the image of pro-business fiscal responsibility strong military and there is no evidence that they have done better than the Democrats in that regard. I think it is because they just talk that way.
- Nusholtz
February 16, 2011 at 10:17am
Paul Ryan is a total fraud. It has to be that he has acquired cachet on budgetary matters because all other major Republican officeholders know even less than he does. I am pleased to note that you make a tepid mention of Barack Obama's optimism and his stretching. Maybe the criticism of Obama yesterday on the part of some of us here has had a slight impact upon you.
- liberalref
February 16, 2011 at 10:50am
- Ryan can't believe his good fortune: The House has no leadership, The Senate is nearly senile and no one has decided to enter a national campaign where his positions would be challenged. He was even lucky after the State Of The Union when a wackier person followed his response. By default he is the new normal in the GOP but considering the problems national strategists have, his goofy math doesn't rank near the top. They know his formula isn't veto proof.
- michaelg
February 16, 2011 at 11:27am
"Ryan's reputation as an honest policy wonk is a curious thing." No it's not. The mainstream press cares far more about LOOKING balanced than about being honest, accurate, and non-misleading; they have to find someone on the Republican side to call an honest policy wonk, or they'll LOOK unbalanced. Plus, the press knows little about policy and cares little compared to personality, horse race, and scandal. They typically went into journalism in part because they didn't like math and technical stuff. It would be nice if we could subsidize the monumental positive externalties of good investigative and analytic journalism with a huge tax credit, so it would be profitable to hire technically skilled people.
- RHSerlin
February 16, 2011 at 12:14pm
I largely agree with your fine comments, RH.
- liberalref
February 16, 2011 at 1:05pm
Also, it's underestimated how much Ryan simply looks like the American image of an honest policy wonk and therefore is taken to be one. In the UK, say, it would be more convincing to have somewhat untidy hair, be bald on top, and wear a slightly ill-fitting tweed jacket. In the U.S., however, Ryan's trim build, short tidy hair, grey suits, and serious expression are all that's needed to cement his reputation.
- ironyroad
February 16, 2011 at 2:17pm
So Mr. Chait's point is that if Paul Ryan had stated that Obama's budget spends an additional $8.7 trillion more than 2012 levels, he would be accurate. However, since he used the term "new" instead of "additional" he is nothing more than an intellectually dishonest hack. Wow! That is quite a linguistic standard. I'd be more inclined to take it seriously if Mr. Chait ever applied it to anything coming out of a Democrat's mouth.
- jkodak
February 16, 2011 at 2:27pm
Another good point reared its head, under the moniker of irony.
- liberalref
February 16, 2011 at 2:49pm
Well this kind of goes with what Chait said about Mitch Daniels a while back. In the GOP, the bar is set so low, just having numbers in a plan (no matter if they make sense) makes you equivalant to a Noble prize winner in economics.
- MikeB.
February 16, 2011 at 6:59pm