SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Path To Prosperity And The True Republican Agenda

JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 7, 2011

The Path To Prosperity And The True Republican Agenda

My (subscriber only) TRB column evaluates Paul Ryan's budget on its own terms:

The new GOP budget unveiled by Paul Ryan is a wildly cruel document. Yet pointing this out, as Democrats keep doing, seems only to flatter Ryan’s self-conception as a serious man telling hard truths. So let me instead concede Ryan’s moral premises. (Throw tens of millions of people off health care? Why not! Slash food stamps? It’ll just inspire the next Dickens!) Instead, let’s judge Ryan by his own standards. Does his plan, however cruel, actually address our fiscal realities? No, it doesn’t. 

James Pethokoukis, a conservative pundit plugged in to the GOP, says, "what GOP support there was for Obama/Bowles/Simpson debt panel plan is collapsing thanks to Ryan Plan." David Frum calls this "the impossible destroying the possible." He may be right -- perhaps Republicans are so intoxicated by the possibility of the total victory promised by Ryan that they're foregoing the half a loaf they can actually attain.

But the implication of my column, which argues that Ryan's "Road to Prosperity" would probably not handle the deficit even if passed into law next week, suggests otherwise. After all, if Ryan's plan is a lousy debt-reduction vehicle, what is it good for? It's a terrific vehicle for advancing the conservative social policy agenda. And if Republicans agree to a debt compromise, they'll lose the urgency of the debt crisis to force the changes to government they could not otherwise achieve. Who's going to agree to draconian cuts in Medicaid and Medicare without the threat of fiscal collapse dangling over our heads?

Now, granted, Frum is right -- Republicans can get some version of Bowles-Simpson, and they can't get the "Path to Prosperity." But they can always hope to win the 2012 election and get their Ryan budget then. And if they don't really care all that much about debt, at least in comparison with the goals of slashing top tax rates and programs for the poor, then their decision is not a crazy misjudgment but a perfectly sane calculation.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 5 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

5 comments

Hopefully, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Tea-Party. Since 2006 (it WAS only 2006, right?) they've been supporting Supply-Side tax-cutting, in a time of historically LOW tax-rates and historically HIGH deficits. And the further they've gotten electorially, the worse their policies have become. From "holding America hostage" to keep the deficit-producing Bush tax-cuts to denying bargaining rights in Wisconsin to refusing to compromise on the budget for 2010. And NOW we have the "privatize Medicare" deficit-producing Ryan bill. How long will this idiocy and demagogury and dogmatic pursuit of the 1920's go on? It's like the Red-Baiting of the 1950's -- decent people can SEE what's happening, yet it takes a lot of time before enough decent people will vote for something better.

- AllanL5

April 7, 2011 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if they don't really care all that much about debt, at least in comparison with the goals of slashing top tax rates and programs for the poor, then their decision is not a crazy misjudgment but a perfectly sane calculation."

Precisely!

- GSpinks

April 7, 2011 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We need a counterplan with taxes in it, but the people who should be doing this seem to be huddled, cowering in a cave somewhere hoping a Roman God of Votes in the Sky will grant their wishes. And we can't do it by saying higher taxes are fairer or patriotic. We have to do it by saying that taxes can't be lower for little consumer people who drive the economy if they aren't higher for bigger people who are doing well despite a sh*tty economy, which proves that with the low tax rates currently in existence, we don't need low taxes for the latter group.

- Nusholtz

April 7, 2011 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The moniker "Honest Paul" should stand down and give way to the more honest "Politics As Usual Paul."

- liberalref

April 7, 2011 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I honestly prefer "Paul Catfood Ryan." But for some reason the media are really trying to sell this as some sort of truthtelling exercise in sanity.

- miceelf

April 7, 2011 at 12:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close