Slaying Privatizing Ryan
by digby
Krugman follows up his dynamite column today on Paul Ryan with a little lesson on how to read a CBO report. This is fascinating and should be common knowledge:
What you need to realize is that the CBO is the servant of members of Congress, which means that if a Congressman asks it to analyze a plan under certain assumptions, it will do just that — no matter how unrealistic the assumptions may be. CBO will tell you what’s going on, but it will do so deadpan, doing nothing in terms of emphasis or placement to highlight the funny business. So how do you spot that funny business? One way is to go through the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb. Another is to look at the estimate, and see if anything odd jumps out — then search for the sources of that oddity.
He then reveals that Paul Ryan’s fabulous road map told the CBO to assume that the massive tax cuts are irrelevant to the issue:
On the tax side, we immediately see that the CBO finds no effect — revenue with the Ryan plan is the same as without it. Huh? Search the report, and you find:
The proposal would make significant changes to the tax system. However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario (which is one interpretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.
In short, the CBO was told to disregard any possible effects of the tax cuts; that’s a pretty good way to make the plan seem affordable.
Moreover, Ryan also told them to assume that all the savings would be from freezing discretionary spending at 2009 levels for ten years, which translates into draconian cuts the details of which are left to future congresses to figure out. (Interestingly, they assume no savings from “entitlement reform” on which his reputation for intellectual honesty rests.)
I admit that economic wonkery is beyond most Americans including me. But it shouldn’t be beyond the leadership of the Democratic party. Unless they are cleverly setting up this charlatan for a big fall (which they should not even attempt because they don’t have the skills) failing to take on Paul Ryan is political malpractice. Boosting him up as they have done is sabotage.
Here’s a typical right wing encomium to Ryan:
The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes:
At just 38, Paul Ryan is already considered a guiding voice of conservatives in Washington. In media profiles and speech introductions, Ryan is often described as a next-generation leader of the Republican Party. That’s only half right. Ryan will almost certainly shape the GOP in the years to come. But, as the gathering at Charlie Palmer’s suggests, Ryan is an influential voice in Washington right now. . . . “He’s smart, eloquent, well-informed and committed to the conservative principles that made this country great,” says Liz Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney and another next-generation conservative leader. There is little disagreement among inside-the-Beltway conservatives that Ryan will have a prominent role in the future of the Republican Party. The only question is whether he’ll be director of the Office of Management and Budget in a future Republican administration—or whether he’ll be on the ticket someday himself.
Paul Ryan has been in congress more than 11 years. Barack Obama was in the Senate from January 4, 2005 until November 13, 2008, less than four years, during which he ran for president. By the time 2012 rolls around, Ryan will have three times the government experience Obama had. More importantly, Ryan will look like the perfect guy to clean up the mess Obama has made of our government and our freedom. Where do I sign? Oh yeah. Maybe it’s just the hair, but he seems to have the whole Reagan thing going for him too. By 2012, that may be a handy little asset.
Oh Good God.
I’m with Howie on this one. Ryan is my choice for Worst Republican too. Certainly the most dangerous. I like Howie’s picture better too:
