Pot Looks In Mirror, Sees Kettle

Beautiful. Paul Ryan, the champion of Republicans on budgetary issues, says this, to Fox "news" Chris Wallace, about his proposals and possible reaction:

WALLACE: Last question, as you look ahead, and a lot of people would say look, the answer is you're not going to get this budget passed. It's really setting up an issue and a sensible debate for 2012. As you look ahead to the next election, aren't Democrats going to be able to say "Look at Paul Ryan, look at the House Republicans. They want to kill Medicare.
They want to kill Medicaid. They want to gut the programs that you depend on." Aren't you playing into the Democrats hands?

RYAN: We are. We are giving them a political weapon to go against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon.

Right. Like health care reform and death panels. Government takeover. Killing grandma.

"Lie and demagogue." "Lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon." That's gonna overtake Alan Greenspan's as the most laughable political comment of the new century.

Ironically, in this case (assuming anyone is listening), all Democrats will have to do is tell the truth.

(I've said many times that any serious budget reform will have to address entitlements, and Ryan's appears to do so. Good for him. However, it appears his plan for Medicare is to can it entirely, in favor of, amusingly, a version of "Obamacare" for seniors. "Fixing" it by turning it into a money-maker for private insurers seems like a non-fix to me and hardly the way to save money. And, since vouchers won't cover the cost of insurance, it'll be de facto rationing of care without having to name it as such. At some point -- especially without appropriate taxes -- we'll have to address rationing. And when we do, let's call it that. Meanwhile, with vouchers the wealthy will be able to buy better insurance, and the poor won't. If that's what we want for Medicare, let's say so, explicitly. Teabaggers? Teabaggers?

In other areas, too, Ryan relies on completely phony numbers.

I've also said -- because it's true -- that any plan that refuses seriously to address the revenue side is seriously unserious. Spending cuts are fine, when they don't destroy research and education, wipe away help for those who need [and deserve] it, and prevent addressing our infrastructure needs. So far, though, Ryan's budget appears to be more of the same thing described in the previous post: rationalizing greed at the expense of a viable future. Lies? Demagoguery? We'll see, won't we?)