“Paul Ryan wants to cut food for poor people. That American bastard totally stole that idea from Dad.” -KimJongNumberUn on Twitter
You will hear a lot about “courage” and “making tough choices” now that the Weinermobile-driving, zombie-eyed-granny starver, Eddie Munster Paul Ryan has been tapped as the VP for the train-wreck that is Mitt Rmoney’s run for the presidency.
That’s right, Mittens has once again caved in to the extreme right-wing voices in his head who command him to jump. His pick of Ryan is proof how high he had to. So this one’s for you, the soulless Ann Coulter-type screechers! Mitt coughed this one up just for you, Teapublican echo chambers! This is the choice that had to be made… the choice that fills in the gaps for the rudderless Rmoney.
Now Rmoney has beside him on the ticket a very young, supposed budget “genius”, theoretically a heartbeat away from the presidency. One who makes this the first Republican ticket in history with no military experience. One who makes this Republican ticket completely devoid of any conceivable foreign policy experience (say what you will about Biden, he had the experience needed to balance the ticket.) One who can not only smirk up a storm right beside Mittens, but a young gun who has put out a real, live, touchable budget plan– unlike himself. He’s got his man to crunch the numbers. He’s got his man to take the heat off of his clandestine tax and business record.
Look over here at this guy! Look away from me! Look! Look over there! A shiny beam of light!
He clearly had to pick Ryan to plug the sinking ship. The only problem is, for the deficit-crazed Teapublicans, his budget is a laughable deficit buster. The numbers don’t ever seem to add up for the supposed budget “genius.” Sorry to bust your bubble Mr.-I-never-got-mad-about-deficits- when- Bush-was -exploding- them-Conservative, they simply don’t. This from Ezra Klein from his Washington Post Blog, regarding Ryan’s budget plan, which increases many outlays (military) while reducing revenues (tax cuts for those wealthy ones once again):
Some of these policies, like Ryan’s Medicaid plan, would reduce deficits. Some of them, like his tax plan, would be likely to increase them. Many of them would have an unclear effect, which is why Ryan’s savings tend to come from instructions he gives the Congressional Budget Office to assume that Congress sticks to extremely austere spending paths — that is how, for instance, he gets all non-entitlement spending down to 3.75 percent of GDP by 2050.
I put in bold a key aspect to Ryan’s budget. The numbers he gives the CBO to use in their calculations assumes a lot of reduced spending and enhanced revenue which is completely unrealistic. Hence, his budgets as proposed will most likely increase deficits overall. This from Matt Miller from the Washington Post:
Ryan is not a “fiscal conservative.” A fiscal conservative pays for the government he wants. Ryan never has. His early “Roadmap for America’s Future” didn’t balance the budget until the 2060s and added $60 trillion to the national debt. Ryan’s revised plan, passed by the House in 2011, wouldn’t reach balance until the 2030s while adding $14 trillion in debt. It adds $6 trillion in debt over the next decade alone…
According to Klein, who has studied both Ryan budgets, what Ryan does is not only make Medicare a voucher program, which the Senate studied and found the average out-of-pocket costs to seniors will run them roughly an extra $6000-$7000, but he cuts across the board almost all government spending that helps the poor or middle-class. He guts Medicade badly, which hurts millions of kids, the very poor and the disabled. Again, he does that while giving tax cuts to corporations and the very wealthy, and doesn’t even cut the deficit. Genius? Budget wonk? Fail.
I guess no one really listened to Newt, the historian, Gingrich when he called Ryan’s budget “right-wing, social engineering.”
As I said earlier, you will hear from the slick carnival hucksters how gutsy Ryan’s plan is. You will hear how Romney went balls out to pick him. I disagree vehemently with that assessment.
You want to be courageous? Cut the bloated military budget.
You want to be courageous? Raise revenue by raising taxes on your boys in the boardroom, cut oil subsidies, tell the Koch Brothers to stuff their dirty money where the sun don’t shine.
You want to be courageous? Go put on a uniform and grab a gun or a firehose and risk your life for someone else.
But until you do, spare me this “courageous” crap.
Courageous is being a single mother, dragging yourself to work everyday and raising your kids in a world where one party wants to give billionaires more tax cuts and take away your earned income tax credit to pay for them.
Courageous is being one of the millions of disabled people who rely on government assistance and trying to live a life of quiet dignity while “wonderkins” like Ryan want to cut the capital gains tax rates for already filthy rich people and make you pay for it.
Courageous is going to war when your country needs you to and not hiding behind draft deferments, fleeing to France, then protesting the war protesters who want the insane carnage to end like your tax-dodging/ draft-dodging/ chickenhawk potential boss did during Vietnam.
Courageous is saving the iconic and important American car industry while your opponents tell ’em to “drop dead”. That decision turns out to be one of the greatest governmental job-saving, and now job creating, moves in history.
Courageous would have been voting against Bush II and Medicare part D when there was a vote requiring prices for pharmaceuticals to be negotiated.
Courageous would be telling the American public how you propose to gut Medicade which effectively kicks millions of children off its rolls.
Courageous isn’t being born to people of great means, personally taking Social Security death benefits and using them to pay for your own college education, getting a job through the family business and then self-righteously proclaiming that safety net programs are like “a hammock which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”
Courageous isn’t doing the above and then cutting Pell grants to economically disadvantaged college kids and telling them to go work more jobs and take out loans to pay for it…just like you didn’t do.
Courageous would have been NOT voting with President Bush’s policies 94% of the time.
Of course, what would a Mitt Rmoney presidential run be without a full-back-spin-twisting half-gainer-belly-flop into the Olympic-sized pool where all of Rmoney’s “political stances” go to contort? Within hours of picking Ryan, clearly to reset his dying campaign, he quickly backed away from the very thing that made his pick relevant–his budget. Look! I picked Ryan to prove I will adopt the Tea Party baby but, “I have my budget plan,” Romney said, “And that’s the budget plan we’re going to run on.”
Really Mitt? Funny how no one has been able to find that budget yet. Lemme know when they do.
No friends, it doesn’t take “courage” to pick a VP who believes in taking programs and benefits away from the elderly, needy, infirmed, and those who have no one on K Street to lobby for them. It doesn’t take” courage” to give all the advantages to the side who already has given themselves as many advantages as possible through their wealth and privilege and political contributions. It doesn’t take “courage” to pick a VP who you desperately need to help you redefine your own campaign and then try to squirm away from his dubious ideas the minute you do.
It only takes desperation.
Oh, by the way, just in case you thought the commotion over your VP pick would stop the country from examining your business background and having the debate about how the tax code works for the 1% really well, I am here to say…release your taxes Mitt!