The Ryan-Romney Flim-flam Ticket
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.
That document, which Ryan had rammed through the U.S. House in 2011, would have provided another gold mine for the one-percenters, with millionaires-and-up averaging around $300,000 a year in tax breaks. The rest of us would've gotten the shaft, including tax increases, privatization of Medicare, deep cuts in student aid and job training programs, and federal abandonment of food stamps and health care for the poor.
Yet Ryan is on the Republican presidential ticket specifically because his budget whackery has enthralled the GOP's far right. Anti-government guru Grover Norquist, for example, has gushed that the six-term Wisconsin congress-critter would be the Dick Cheney of economic policy. Sheesh — that's not a threat to be taken lightly!
But the very bauble that got him to the GOP's No. 2 political slot turns out to be so widely and wildly unpopular with voters in the deeper waters of the general election that it's already been trashed by the party's No. 1. "I have my own budget plan," Romney backpedaled the day after he knighted Sir Ryan, "and that's the budget plan we're going to run on." Yes, the budget with no numbers.
That aside, it's kind of strange (and a bit unsettling) to see a candidate for president straining to explain that he's the one in charge, not the young ideologue. Romney even went on national TV to tell us that, while Ryan would certainly be among the people he asks for advice, "I have to make the final call in important decisions." Sure, Mitt — you da man! But was he trying to convince us ... or himself? Or Ryan?
Embarrassingly, at the staged event where Romney introduced his VP selectee, he bungled his line, presenting Ryan as "the next president of the United States." Was that just another Romney gaffe? A Freudian slip? Or an eerie moment of candor?
After all, Romney has no unwavering principles or solid commitment to any policy except, "Elect me, and I'll lower my taxes." Republican leaders are now trying to downplay Ryan's extremism, but if they were honest with voters, their bumper sticker would read: "Ryan-Romney in 2012."
CONNECT














6 comments on "The Ryan-Romney Flim-flam Ticket"
August 23, 2012 4:56pm
Tell it like it is Clarence.
August 22, 2012 8:56pm
Jim Hightower, the only sane Texan now that Molly is gone. Keep hittin' em' Jim
Romoney/Rand the Gop flop team!
August 22, 2012 1:33pm
SHOCK AND AWE
----------DEMOCRATS CREATE WEALTH AND JOBS--------
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
WOW.
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!
August 22, 2012 4:10pm
I was really amazed at these statistics. I would appreciate it if you would provide a direct link to your source. Thanks.
August 22, 2012 10:21am
Romney & Ryan, LLC (Ludicrous Lying Conmen)
August 22, 2012 6:55am
PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, JR
AL GORE WON AND WAS ELECTED( NOT SELECTED)
A LOOK AT A DIFFERENT 2010
He would have continued Clinton/Newt Fiscal Policies of Pay Your Way
We would continue to have Surpluses not Debt as far as the eye can see
Debt today would be 6000B not 15000B
2010 Budget would be 3000B not 3800
Unemployment would be 5% not the real 17%.
Food Stamp Roll would be 10% not 46%
Unemployment Insurance Roll would be low
Redistribution of Wealth back to Middle Class would have continued
The top 1% would own 20% not 43% of Total Financial Wealth
He would have continued Taxing the top 1%
Wall Street Regulators would be under experts not Partners In Crime
We would have 400 military bases not 800 worldwide
We would not have two wars
We would not have lost thousands of lives of young youths
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims would still be alive
Thousands of young Muslims would still have legs feet and minds
America would still be the most admired nation on Earth not the most despised
We would go back to behaving as a Christ-Like nation via our national policies
Millions would own homes not foreclosure notices
States would not be laying off hundreds of thousands in such important jobs as
Teaching and Policing California would have a balanced budget
John Kerry would be President.
Sound common sense policies would continue.