Quote of the Day? Walkback of the Week!

Via Brad Delong, Daniel Kuhn, at his site Facts and Other Stubborn Things, brings us the “quote of the day” from libertarian economist Mario Rizzo, after learning that his signing of a document headed “Economists for Romney” proved to be a source of amusement in some quarters:

I interpreted signing as restricted to economic policy issues. The statement itself speaks only to economic issues. However, at the time, I didn’t realize the degree to which people would interpret this as an endorsement of Romney overall. (Yes, the headline is “Economists for Romney” but somehow I thought it was clear that it was only economics.) I do not endorse his views on foreign policy, civil liberties and social policy. Endorsement of his economic policy proposals is to be viewed only in comparison to Obama’s policies (and also his lack of proposals to restrain spending). This does not represent my deepest ideals or a comprehensive economic philosophy. I believe it is akin to choosing the less scratchy toilet paper. I am distressed that some people would interpret my action as selling out to the GOP establishment or such. I am not looking for a job with a Romney administration. (They would never offer, anyway. I can’t keep my mouth shut.)

Yes, Mario, why would signing a document saying you were “for” Romney cause people to think that you were actually “for” Romney? People are so damn literal! As for Romney’s economic “policies,” he doesn’t have any. Is promising to increase defense spending a full percentage point of GNP an economic “policy”? Will it “restrain spending”? Romney has signed on to the Ryan “plan”—which of course is not a plan—except for the parts that reduce spending for the middle class. In particular, Ryan said he would keep the $700 billion reduction in Medicare spending (over ten years) that ObamaCare was supposed to provide, in order to help pay for the gigantic and useless tax cuts he’s heaping on the rich.* Well, Romney likes the tax cuts, but doesn’t like the spending cuts. A balanced budget, you say? What is that?

Ten years down the road, of course, Romney/Ryan will “order” the 122nd Congress to convert Medicare into a voucher system. Recently, the 112th Congress (the current one) ordered itself to sequester about $50 billion in defense spending for the current year. Well, now it’s deciding that it can’t tell itself what to do, and it’s going to unsequester the damn cash. How likely is it that the 122nd will prove to be as obstreperous as the 112th? Pretty damn likely.

I can see why Mario compares Obama’s budget to “scratchy toilet paper.” It’s an honest budget—honest in that it recognizes all the political pieties of both the left and right, and honest in recognizing that Americans don’t want a balanced budget. When Bill Clinton balanced the budget, George Bush unbalanced it, and he was re-elected. Obama wastes hundreds of billions on defense, tens of billions on counterproductive subsidies of all kinds, overspends on education. We’ve always done it that way! If we don’t, the gods will punish us! So, yes, it’s a terrible budget, especially if you’re a libertarian. But it is a budget. Romney doesn’t have a budget. What Romney has is a lie. So it isn’t a choice between scratchy and less scratchy. It’s a choice between scratchy and shitty fingers.

Afterwords
Mario protesteth that he isn’t looking for a job with the Romney Administration. I think he means “I’m not looking very hard. But I do answer my phone.”

*Currently, ObamaCare would use the savings to extend medical coverage to those who don’t have it.