Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

Let’s talk budget! Yes, the wonky wonderland of the federal budget, with page after page of numbers — what fun, eh?

No. Most people would prefer a root canal to a budget discussion (indeed, I’ve heard that some dentists use a recording of budget numbers to anesthetize their root-canal patients — everything from the neck up quickly goes numb). But Paul Ryan is different.

The GOP’s vice presidential nominee is touted as Mr. Budget, a guy who gets excited by running his fingers through fiscal things. That’s why the Washington cognoscenti have declared him to be “serious,” rather than just another political opportunist riding the right-wing wave of tea party ridiculousness.

Being branded as “serious” means never having to admit you’re a flim-flam man. Thus, the widely ballyhooed Ryan Budget is called “honest” and “responsible” by insiders who obviously haven’t run the numbers on it.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, however, has tallied Ryan’s budgetary giveaways to the rich and take-backs from the middle-class and the poor. Far from balancing the federal budget, as the self-proclaimed deficit hawk claims, the analysts found that Ryan’s plan increases the federal deficit. And not by a little, but by about $2.5 trillion! So, yes, he is serious — serious as a snakebite.

Then there was Ryan’s explosive admission recently that the budget plan of his presidential partner, Mitt Romney, is also a con game. Despite Romney’s repeated assertion that — by golly — his nifty plan will balance the federal budget in only eight years, Ryan confessed that they don’t really know that, because “we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan.”

Say what? What? Hello — a budget is nothing but numbers — numbers that have, in fact, been run! Otherwise, it’s just a political hoax.

During his run in the presidential primaries this spring, when he was trolling for votes in the shallow waters of the Republican fringe, Romney embraced the Ryan budget, calling it a “bold and exciting effort” that is “very much needed.” And, hoping to glom onto Ryan’s “wow” appeal to the hyper-energized right wing, Romney brought Mr. Budget onboard for the fall run — with one interesting condition: The veep candidate has had to jettison his budget.

  • clarenceswinney

    1.From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003
    2.Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
    3.Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs — Republicans 36,440,000.
    4.Per Year Average—Democrats 1,825,000–Republicans 856,000. WOW
    5.Republicans had 9 presidents during the period and 6 had depression or recession.
    6.Republicans had a recession/depression in 177 months and Democrats in 32 months. WOW.
    ——————Each “significant” one was under a R president————————-
    7.DOW—1928 to 2003—Stock market gained 11% average per year under D presidents versus 2% under R presidents. Small Cap stocks gained 18% as yearly average under D and minus 3% under R
    8.GDP—grew by 43% more under Democrats. WOW
    9.Income Growth—1948-2005–each increased (percentage wise)under D presidents over R presidents by these numbers– Quintiles–(Top-10%)–(2nd-71%)-(third-127%)-(fourth-212%)-(fifth-550%) WOW

    source–TimothyNoah– Nov. 2010 in Slate magazine
    Question—Why would a working person vote for a Republican for President?
    Shhh do not awaken democratic leadership!

  • jon

    So much garbage in this article I can’t even address it all. But one small thing would be go back to when Obama introduced that genius Biden to the country and made the exact same “gaffe” of introducing Biden as the next President of the United States. It’s all fear tactics with you Democrats. But if I had to run on Obama’s record I would probably do the same thing. Would be nice though if you all started telling people the truth. Why would you change now though.

    • sydneyst

      Please Jon, do address it all – there are not that many things to address surely. Would love to hear your reasoning otherwise your comment doesn’t really count for anything.

    • phantomoftheopera

      when you can only address one, small, insignificant thing, i think it means you can’t find anything meaningful to address! of course, republicans always tell the truth–not.

  • What the GOP does not want to mention, when they talk about record budget deficits and increases in the national debt, are the actual reasons for those increases which range from President Obama emphasis on transparency to the effects of the Great Recession that began – officially – in 2008. A substantial increase in the official spending involves the fact that President Obama ordered the inclusion of the cost of wars, MEDICARE reimbursement paid for with general funds, disaster relief and similar items in the general budget where it should have been all along. He, in effect, rejected the accounting gimmicks used by Bush to hide the cost of those expenditures and put in the budget to ensure people understood the cost of the policy decisions we have made as a nation. Other causes for our budget deficits include the cost of Bush’s TARP and Obama’s stimulus package, two initiatives that prevented the collapse of the U.S. economy and, possibly, a second Great Depression. Last, but not least, are the effects of a major recession including a dramatic drop in revenues and the increased cost of funding unemployment to keep fellow Americans from starving. The choice for us is to decide whether we want placebos or accept the consequences of our decisions and actions.

    • jarheadgene

      Wait a minute…..BUSH wasn’t being candid? Come on. A REPUBLICAN President was misleading the American People….say it aint so.


  • ….but if they were honest with voters, their bumper sticker would read: “Ryan-Romney in 2012.”

    – No. their bumper sticker would read: “We’re Rich, We’re White, EFF You!”

  • howa4x

    Part of Republican voodoonomics that they have been using since the Laffer curve, they have always come up with new ways to shift the economic wealth the the very rich(Romney should know that) Reagan did a pretty good job of selling the trickle down theory since people mistakenly trusted him from his days hawking Boraxo as the old ranger. Bush II though really out did even Laffer with his tax cut that sent the fortunes of the 1% up 256% above everyone else who were happy to get 3%. We were Promised more Jobs and an economy thart would grow to full employment. Instead we got the trickle down and out the door effect of jobs(ask Mitt he should know) as 2.9 million were outsurced to places like China. The only real growth happened in the finance sector (Ask Mitt again to highlite that) and they were buying and selling debt in a de regulated Wall St economy. We all know what happened next as the house of cards came crashing down and Bush once again bailed out the 1% with the TARP plan. Of course the former Goldman Saks guy Paulson was in chage of that, he was able to dupe congress into giving him a free hand so the banks were bailed out and we all get the shaft. Now you would think that by now real conservatives and most economists, and even the lower intelligence groups would say hey we tried that 2x, of giving the largess of this country to the very few and once again they didn’t come through, No real job growth, and some actually invested or hid some of it overseas(Mitt will explain how to do that)
    So now once again here they come. This time a real 1%er will actually try to tell us all about the job growth that happens when the 1% gets it all. Although there are no statistics to back this up and to the contrary more to say why it won’t work, but they are undeterred. They picked a guy this time with no real convictions, just an out right oppurtunist to carry the banner of tax cuts for the rich and now added a well spoken mate to once again try to convince us that giving a large tax break to the Koch bros will stimulate job growth, although it never has. In fact why haven’t the Bros created thousands of jobs, after all they have near 50 billion. I wonder why people think they need more? They must be saying, gee if we only had 10 billion more we could really do something. . In order to pull this off again the super rich needed a vocal group that isn’t very smart, and was side tracked easily. A group easily manipulated by their minions at Fox and Friends into voting directly against their own intersts and that of their children. People who would vote against the enviornment, be against higher education, health care for their own children, and repairing our deteriorating infastructure
    You must have guessed who that group is. Yes the Tea Party was born and molded for this job. The stupidest people on the planet, ready to battle the ungodly democrats in a effort to save their country
    The saga continues

  • grammyjill

    My brother says that IF Romney gets elected he will make history. He will be the first president to be assasinated by a woman.

  • SaneJane

    Without the numbers a budget is just a suggestion.

  • nomaster

    Flip and Flop have disguised a plan of a budget that wasn’t ever meant to have a real goal but deception of the voter. Willard the Rat man and Ben the rat Ryan have such a huge bag of tricks to reach into. Oh yes, and the etch a sketch.