PLANK AUGUST 29, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
You’re going to read and hear a lot about Paul Ryan’s speech on Wednesday night. And I imagine most of it will be about how Ryan’s speech played—with the party loyalists in Tampa, with the television viewers across the country, and eventually with the swing voters who will decide the election.
I’d like to talk, instead, about what Ryan actually said—not because I find Ryan’s ideas objectionable, although I do, but because I thought he was so brazenly willing to twist the truth.
At least five times, Ryan misrepresented the facts. And while none of the statements were new, the context was. It’s one thing to hear them on a thirty-second television spot or even in a stump speech before a small crowd. It’s something else entirely to hear them in prime time address, as a vice presidential nominee is accepting his party’s nomination and speaking to the entire country.
Here are the five statements that deserve serious scrutiny:
1) About the GM plant in Janesville.
Ryan’s home district includes a shuttered General Motors plant. Here’s what happened, according to Ryan:
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
It’s true: The plant shut down. But it shut down in 2008—before Obama became president.
By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. Credible estimates suggested that the rescue saved more than a million jobs. Unemployment in Michigan and Ohio, the two states with the most auto jobs, have declined precipitously.
2) About Medicare.
Ryan attacked Obama for “raiding” Medicare. Again, Ryan has no standing whatsoever to make this attack, because his own budget called for taking the same amount of money from Medicare. Twice. The only difference is that Ryan’s budget used those savings to finance Ryan’s priorities, which include a massive tax cut that benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
It’s true that Romney has pledged to put that money back into Medicare and Ryan now says he would do the same. But the claim is totally implausible given Romney's promise to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of gross domestic product.
By the way, Obamacare's cut to Medicare was a reduction in what the plan pays hospitals and insurance companies. And the hospitals said they could live with those cuts, because Obamacare was simultaneously giving more people health insurance, alleviating the financial burden of charity care.
What Obamacare did not do is take away benefits. On the contrary, it added benefits, by offering free preventative care and new prescription drug coverage. By repealing Obamacare, Romney and Ryan would take away those benefits—and, by the way, add to Medicare's financial troubles because the program would be back to paying hospitals and insurers the higher rates.
3) About the credit rating downgrade.
Ryan blamed the downgrading of American debt on Obama. But it was the possibility that America would default on its debts that led to the downgrade. And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands.
4) About the deficit.
Ryan said “President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him” and proclaimed “We need to stop spending money we don’t have.” In fact, this decade’s big deficits are primarily a product of Bush-era tax cuts and wars. (See graph.) And you know who voted for them? Paul Ryan.
5) About protecting the weak.
Here’s Ryan on the obligations to help those who can’t help themselves:
We have responsibilities, one to another – we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves. … We can make the safety net safe again.
The rhetoric is stirring—and positively galling. Analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that 62 percent of the cuts in Ryan budget would come from programs that serve low-income people. And that’s assuming he keeps the Obamacare Medicare cuts. If he’s serious about putting that money back into Medicare, the cuts to these programs would have to be even bigger.
Among the cuts Ryan specified was a massive reduction in Medicaid spending. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Urban Institute, between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance from these cuts. That’s above and beyond the 15 million or so who are supposed to get Medicaid coverage from the Affordable Care Act but wouldn’t because Romney and Ryan have pledged to repeal the law.
I realize conservatives think that transforming Medicaid into a block grant, so that states have more control over how to spend the money, can make the program more efficient. But Medicaid already costs far less than any other insurance program in America. And even to the extent states can find some new efficiencies, the idea that they can find enough to offset such a draconian funding cut is just not credible.
Update: I clarified the passage on Medicare.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
38 comments
Don't think small. Think big. Don't fail small. Fail big. Don't lie small. Lie REALLY REALLY BIG.
- skahn
August 30, 2012 at 12:18am
The "We need to stop spending money we don’t have" line is particularly galling. Republicans keep focusing on the spending part of the statement while assuming the "have" part is completely fixed and therefore not in our control. The reason we don't have the money is because they frigging cut taxes and refuse to look at increasing revenues. They won't even ask those who make the most to pay the rates they did under Clinton. We could "have" more, it's just that Republicans refuse to consider that possibility even as federal revenues are at 60 year lows as a percentage of GDP. It's akin to the definition of chutzpah: killing your parents and then asking the court for mercy as an orphan.
- dsimon
August 30, 2012 at 12:47am
I'm not much good at reading graphs, but I heard somewhere that two-thirds of the national debt incurred since 2000 came while Bush was president. So both he and Obama are responsible for the same annual average of the debt. But Obama had to deal with the economic crash. Bush had to deal with the beginning of the War on Terror, but the invasion of Iraq, Part D Medicare, and lowering taxes (during the two most expensive wars in our history!) were voluntary on his part. And those three adventures add up to a staggering amount of debt, by far more than any president is responsible for so far. But Paul Ryan's robotoid followers not only believe the lie about Obama running up the greatest debt ever--they cheer it. Common sense tells you it's a lie. How can our democracy survive, when at least half the voters in this country have no common sense, when they want to believe instead of think?
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:46am
Fuck 'em. Obama and the Democrats will have the last word in Charlotte. If BHO lets this shit stand unanswered, then I'll worry, but I don't think he's going to. I think our president has finally clocked the fact that his opposition is the most venal, dishonest pack of dogs in US history.
- AaronW
August 30, 2012 at 3:04am
I've just had an email from the Obama campaign on Ryan's speech. Rufus Gifford didn't shie away from the L-word: lies.
- AaronW
August 30, 2012 at 4:28am
At its most basic, even if the amount of Medicaid block grants did keep pace with health care costs, it does nothing to fix a broken and overly expensive system that does not function like a "normal" market. In a best case scenario, costs would only continue to increase.
- Claris
August 30, 2012 at 6:04am
Talk about dishonest-- After Obama became president, he enjoyed, for a period of time, a veto-proof majority in the senate, and the Democrats totally controlled the house. During this period, he had the full ability to do away with some or all of the Bush-era tax cuts. He didn't; nor did he make any effort to do so. At that point, they are, in my book, the Obama tax cuts. Thereafter, while the Dems still controlled both houses, Obama signed a law extending all of them for two years, further "owning" them. Obama had the full ability to get rid of all of the Bush tax cuts; having chosen not to do so, and having chosen instead to extend them, the deficits (if any) attributable to those tax cuts are all on Obama's tab.
- horsefly
August 30, 2012 at 7:04am
horsefly -> horseshit
- AaronW
August 30, 2012 at 7:51am
horsefly - I think it's a bit of rewriting history to imagine that Obama had the votes in the House or Senate to end the Bush tax cuts in 2009 or 2010. Yes, he Democratic majorities, but the thing about them is that they were made up of - Democrats - fractious, unruly, and in many case blue-dog conservative Democrats who were not going to vote then and there on a tax increase. More importantly, there were a lot of people, including the one that matters in the White House, smart enough to realize that a big tax increase at the moment the economy was in free-fall was simply bad economics.
- IowaBeauty
August 30, 2012 at 7:58am
And even more importantly, he only HAD that 2/3 majority from the time the contested Al Franken election was settled -- July 7 2009, until Edward Kennedy DIED -- August 25, 2009. Frankly, having 2 months of 2/3 majority does not mean you get everything you want. Not to mention, they HAD passed a Stimulus bill. They were still negotiating the Obamacare, and every time they thought they had a "compromise" with the Republicans, the Republicans would renege. And yes, the Democrats have their Big Tent, so they had to keep the Blue Dogs happy. Extending the Bush Tax-Cuts was a demand made by Republicans in December 2009, or they would use their "super minority" to shut down the Government. Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it.
- AllanL5
August 30, 2012 at 8:17am
Here is a web site with more material about the Romney and Ryan lies -- well worth forwarding to your lists: http://romneytheliar.blogspot.com/
- PeteBeck
August 30, 2012 at 8:26am
GOPers left this planet for a parallel universe awhile back, it is just taking awhile for some us to notice due to longer work hours, less benefits, and greatly reduced 401ks. The universe where GOPers now reside, where America is the only country and their freedom planet is the center of their universe, has no need for facts, data, history, or any of the sciences. They just get in the way of their beliefs. The behavior of their new lily population, dominated by males with only enough women to lay those eggs so baby cretins can be born, is based on pre-adolescent behavior, the expectations of full adolescence just couldn't be reached by their leaders. So self-centered, doesn't pick up after themselves, constantly asking for money, complaining about any responsibilities or expectations to contribute, their non-ending fascination with female organs, their tendency to have melt-downs if they don't get their way every time, is now their norm. I am very sure I would rather fry here on earth from their SUV exhaust fumes, than vote to join that "party".
- smabry03
August 30, 2012 at 8:29am
"By the way, nobody questions that, if not for the Obama Administration’s decision to rescue Chrysler and GM, the domestic auto industry would have crumbled. " By the way, lots of people voted for Richard Nixon, Mrs. Kael. The fact that Jonathan Cohn hangs out in circles where nobody questions the actions of big government does not mean everyone hangs out in those circles. Lots of people question whether Obama's decision to give $20 billion of taxpayers' money to the UAW prevented the auto industry from crumbling.
- mrsplatypus
August 30, 2012 at 8:43am
The Janesville anecdote ought to win some kind of award. Obama did say that. The plant was closed within the year. Oh, you think Ryan was implicating Obama in the closing? Where did you get that idea. Ryan was just telling a story.
- kpidcoc
August 30, 2012 at 8:43am
smabry03: It's early, but so far you are the clear leader in the daily Don't hold back; say what you really think sweepstakes.
- skahn
August 30, 2012 at 8:48am
Allan5 - you forgot to mention that, IIRC, congress was in recess for 4 of those weeks! So horsefly's "for a period of time" is more like 5 weeks. It does beggar belief however that people make this statement "well, he had a veto proof majority" and never seem to question why he needed one. Or question the assumption that the Democrats, instead of acting like representatives in a representative democracy, would all fall in line like the GOP can be relied to do. Funny that. Guess it might colour the B&W picture of Obama's incompetence/anti-colonialism/duplicity/muslimism/socialism [insert preferred pejorative here] a little grey, and we can't have that.
- Nari224
August 30, 2012 at 9:24am
To mrsplatypus "Lots of people question whether Obama's decision to give $20 billion of taxpayers' money to the UAW prevented the auto industry from crumbling." What a dumb, uninformed comment. First, the federal government didn't give a penny to the UAW. It loaned money to GM, to be repaid in the form of cash and stock. All of the cash owed has been repaid, and some (not all) of the stock was sold. The feds still hold 500 million shares of GM. If the feds sold now, there would have been a loss, but there is no reason to sell now when GM's PE ratio is so low. Meanwhile, more than 1 million jobs have been saved, not only at GM (yes, where workers belong to the UAW) but at suppliers throughout Michigan, Ohio, and elsewhere in the Midwest, as well as at all the businesses who sell products and services to people who work at GM and the suppliers. In addition, of course, those jobs generate billions in taxes every year for the feds and state and local governments. And note: The loans to GM actually started under George Bush, who loaned more than 17 billion to the auto companies. If Obama had not acted, that 17 billion would have been gone, much more than the amount still owed.
- PeteBeck
August 30, 2012 at 9:48am
What Cohn-less-ness got wrong 1. GM plant did not close in 2008; April 23 2009 it was put on standby -- whereby it could be reactivated. Closed even later. 2. On Medicare -- Ryan/Romney cuts less than Obama-- this is a fact based on budgets, not a lie. Your partisan opinion disregarding the fact is not relevant. 3. Of course it was Obama's issue. Exploding debt does that. And Obama himself agreed with Republicans before he became President 4. On deficit, you failed basic math. Simple equation - Debt_now less Debt_when_Obama_took_office > any other President. Ryan was not lying 5. On safety net -- Ryan's point is that Medicare not sustainable in its current form. Even you must know that. Ryan offers a solution. Making medicare sustainable is good? right? 0 for 5. typical record for such a partisan liberal shill with limited critical reasoning skills Rationality wins again
- mr_rationale
August 30, 2012 at 10:08am
horsefly Assuming the myth of democratic control and a unified democratic party, why are the Democrats blamed for leaving Republican policies in place? Mr. Rat In June of 2008, GM announced it would close the plant by 2010 "as it changes its focus from larger vehicles to more fuel-efficient ones." The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, when GM ceased production of SUVs there and laid off 1,200 workers.
- Nusholtz
August 30, 2012 at 11:52am
I was loaded for bear to comment on this knee-jerk, superficial, nonsensical article, but in reading mr_rationale's inciseve comment, I see no need, except to add that the auto bail out could have and should have been done under the law, i.e., Ch XI, and the resultant restructuring would have been far superior and more sustainable and would not have turned the law on its head. But the UAW would have been upset.
- SSciaretta
August 30, 2012 at 11:52am
You totally missed the overarching theme of how it's Obama's fault because his budget plans, which a Republican controlled house have squashed at every opportunity, have failed to fix the economy.
- GSpinks
August 30, 2012 at 12:01pm
I am not, nor have I ever been registered in either political party and I have not donated money to any campaign since I've been old enough to vote (88 was my first presidential election) but after watching the blatent liars paraded out on stage at the RNC last night I finally felt compelled to give Obama some cash. I don't agree with many of his policies but at least he's fairly honest. The Republican Party seems hellbent on repeating their lies enough to ensure they become accepted as facts. Sadly, this country is just ignorant enough to buy it. We are doomed if these corporate hacks are elected to the highest ofice.
- Graydon87
August 30, 2012 at 12:04pm
The sad part is not the spurious nature of his speech or the party. The sad part is the large number of people who not just believe it, but want to believe it. These people want to believe the absolute worst things about the current president and refuse to accept facts.
- PlanetScot
August 30, 2012 at 12:09pm
response to mr_rat: 1. production stopped in dec 2008 but it took months to "shut down" the plant. the right is going to pick this apart. and obama may well have made that statement while on the stump. imagine a pol demanding another pol face his past assertions or promises...at any rate, this is one i choose not to use. 2. medicare: mr_rat is disingenuous. it doesn't matter the size of the cut. what matters is the total program. aca has the side benefit of eliminating the government's need to subsidize charity care at the nation's hospitals. that's not a reduction in medicare but an efficient rationalization of a not-terribly-visible part of the nation's healthcare system. compare that to romney/ryan, whose cuts will affect services. 3. an incoming administration's fiscal policy is inherited. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html the budget leading to the first year's red ink was put in place by the prior administration. one can only really evaluate the fiscal policies of an administration from the second year through the last year-plus-one. 4. whatever... 5. making medicare sustainable is good. gutting medicare is bad. ryan offers ways to destroy the system by decreasing funding at the same time moving administration from low-overhead to high-overhead intermediaries. conclusion: mr_rat shouldn't be so quick to accuse others of limited critical reasoning skills. he hasn't shown that he doesn't himself suffer from the malady.
- rhoneyman
August 30, 2012 at 1:01pm
GRATING EXPECTATIONS: If the Romney/Ryan ticket wins the presidency and Republicans capture both houses —but the Senate only marginally---we can expect (1) important legislation accomplished only by the tactic of reconciliation, (2) repeal of Obamacare and replacement of Medicare with a voucher system that will be sensationally profitable for insurance companies but inevitably insufficient for seniors’ healthcare, (3) repeal of federal Medicaid but with payment continuing to the states, which may simply put the money in vouchers for private schooling, (4) deregulation of finance, manufacturing and commerce that will restore massive opportunity for fraud, (5) privatization of Social Security resulting in a surge of profit for mega-rich banks and private investment funds, (6) substantial “self-deportation” of Latinos, leaving a huge loss of workers for farm and other low-paid employment, (7) destruction of unions and repeal of the minimum wage law, (8) increasing low-wage employment and a rapidly decreasing middle class, (9) extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and (10) widespread suppression of lower class voting. If the Obama/Biden ticket wins the presidency but Republicans capture both houses—or a majority of the House and 49% of the Senate—we can expect (1) government will be crippled for another four years by obstructionist tactics of all Republican legislators, (2) Republican bills based on lies and attempts to further redistribute America's wealth to the One Percent will be vetoed by the president, (4) important legislation will be accomplished only by the tactic of reconciliation, (4) employment will increase but not satisfactorily and (5) the nation will suffer a daily torrent of misleading claims and outright lies with constant conservative campaigning funded secretly by the mega-rich.
- Weston
August 30, 2012 at 1:14pm
Bravo, Jonathan, on pointing out the weaknesses in Ryan's--and indeed the entire Republican --platform.
- decushman
August 30, 2012 at 1:16pm
Odd that we are seeing all of these first-time posters here all of a sudden, and that all of them are so stridently pro- or anti-Obama! And right around election time, too! Seriously, how does a campaign decide that dummy commentors on the website of a low-circulation, center-left periodical is going to have any effect whatsoever on the election? Haven't they done a cost-benefit analysis on this??
- bunthorne
August 30, 2012 at 1:30pm
horsefly, The Senate under Obama was never veto-proof. There are always those pesky Southern Democrats, who are basically Republicans, and then Joe Lieberman, who's basically a Republican. And tax legislation is almost always initiated in the House, where a minority of Republicans declared war on Obama and America. A super-aggressive minority always rules. My favorite example is when Lenin named his emerging party the Bolsheviks (Majoritarians), when actually they were in the minority. Come to think of it, the GOP reminds me a bit of the emerging Bolshevik party. No compromise. Ever.
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:32pm
"But the UAW would have been upset." SSciaretta, The has UAW compromised greatly with the Big Three automakers, starting in the early Eighties, when GM started outsourcing jobs. Since then union membership in the U.S. has declined to less than 7% of the workforce, and most of that membership is in the public sector. Private-sector unions are almost gone, much to the glee of the Republicans. You're living in the past, where most Republicans are entrenched, much to the detriment of America.
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:41pm
"Odd that we are seeing all of these first-time posters here all of a sudden, and that all of them are so stridently pro- or anti-Obama! And right around election time, too! Seriously, how does a campaign decide that dummy commentors on the website of a low-circulation, center-left periodical is going to have any effect whatsoever on the election? Haven't they done a cost-benefit analysis on this??" We're just exercising our right to free speech, bunthorne--like you are. Nothing more monumental than that. And since when has everything in the universe come down to cost-benefit analysis?
- magboy47.
August 30, 2012 at 2:49pm
"We're just exercising our right to free speech..." Well, magboy47, you're not exactly a "first time poster" here, now are you? Or are you admitting that you are on the payroll of a campaign as well? "And since when has everything in the universe come down to cost-benefit analysis?" Oh, you got me! I'm a soulless hack who thinks of nothing but money. We hear a lot on this very website about the decisions that campaigns with limited funds make to allocate those funds, as well as the relative effectiveness of various campaign techniques. Is this not apropos?
- bunthorne
August 30, 2012 at 3:12pm
I tried to watch but I started yelling at the TV and got a huge migraine. So, I admire the people who were able to watch without throwing something at the tube and/or having an actual stroke. Age 62 this is hardly the first election of my life but I think it's first where people were willing to lie, repeatedly, hugely, enormously, to the entire nation. In an age where facts are readily accessible this is astonishing and it frightens me.
- Sophia
August 30, 2012 at 4:18pm
I didn't even try to watch, because I knew I would react the same way as Sophia. I am most disturbed by the same thing that bothers her and some other commenters: not just that the Republicans lie outrageously, but that so many people uncritically swallow the lies when their own memories, if nothing else, should tell them differently. Those of us commenting on this page are either preaching to the choir or too bought in to the Republican world view to be influenced by the most evident facts, but what can any of us do to get those who are somewhere in between to see this? Or is it hopeless? Would it help if the media were better at pointing out the truth, or would it be useless since people only watch or read what they already agree with anyway?
- VAliberal
August 30, 2012 at 5:16pm
For those who whine about the Southern and Blue-dog democrats, what you are really saying is that Obama had an inability to lead, resulting in bi-partisan opposition to his plans. The Republican leaders, on the other hand, were unanimous in their opposition to Obama's plans. And, significantly, Obama never once proposed to get rid of the Bush tax cuts while he had control of both houses.
- horsefly
August 30, 2012 at 10:13pm
I seldom watch TV (not having live reception at home). I rarely vote Republican, but I am at times willing to do so, and to consider their arguments seriously. Today at the gym I switched back and forth between MSNBC coverage and CNN coverage of convention. (No FOX on at gym to compare.) I was rather astonished by the blatent hostility on both MSNBC and CNN toward the GOP. They didn't come right out and say, "Lying scumbags!" (I presume they have lawyers carefully monitoring what might be actionable) but they got as close to saying this as they could. Now I am not a particular fan of GOP in general, but these channels' coverage could hardly be described as "news reporting" (as I once understood it to be). The world is getting stranger and stranger; and, frankly, scarier and scarier. Either the GOP is going to have a sudden drastic meltdown as everybody wakes up to how crazy they are, or we all are in very deep shit.
- skahn
August 30, 2012 at 10:46pm
"The Republican leaders, on the other hand, were unanimous in their opposition to Obama's plans." Ain't that the truth, horsefly! Congressional Republicans unanimously opposed even their own legislative proposals, once Obama signed onto them. An example is the ACA, which is a plan that the GOP proposed in the Nineties as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's public option plan. I don't even know why Republicans want to be in the government that they hate. Maybe to sabotage it? P.J. O'Rourke: "...the Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
- magboy47.
August 31, 2012 at 12:19am
It was a mistake. With some humility the error can be corrected. I think we can fin many similar errors on both sides? Can we deny that the Obama record is very vulnerable? Is the Pritzker fortune still supporting it creation?
- sf4200
August 31, 2012 at 9:39am
magboy47: re UAW. You miss the point. I know about the declining membership, which makes it more astonishing that they can, and I mean this seriously, still pull this presidnet's strings. Why did he have to completely denigrate the law and the legal process that we all live under in business, which is truly the bedrock of our economic system and way of life, except to mollify a segment that, despite their diminishing numbers, still provides huge financial and on-the-ground political support? Chapter XI is a reorganization process that keeps businesses going; it is not a liquidation and closure of a business. It would have respected the priorities of claims established by law and contract, that we all live with, and not give false, politically driven preferences to anyone. And at the end of the day the reshuffeling would have resulted in a much more stable and viable domestic auto industry.
- SSciaretta
August 31, 2012 at 11:34am