Andrew Sullivan, or one of his minions, collects a number of reactions to Ryan Lizza’s profile of Rep. Paul Ryan for the New Yorker. Lizza makes a point of “nailing” Ryan on spending projects for his own district, as quoted in Sullivan’s post:
When I pointed out to Ryan that government spending programs were at the heart of his home town’s recovery, he didn’t disagree. But he insisted that he has been misunderstood. “Obama is trying to paint us as a caricature,” he said. “As if we’re some bizarre individualists who are hardcore libertarians. It’s a false dichotomy and intellectually lazy.” He added, “Of course we believe in government. We think government should do what it does really well, but that it has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports.”
But independent assessments make clear that Ryan’s budget plan, in order to achieve its goals, would drastically reduce the parts of the budget that fund exactly the kinds of projects and research now helping Janesville.
Otherwise, Lizza buys into Ryan’s image exactly as Ryan sells it: “Like many young conservatives, he [Ryan] is embarrassed by the Bush years. At the time, as a junior member with little clout, Ryan was a reliable Republican vote for policies that were key in causing enormous federal budget deficits ….”
Is he really “embarrassed,” or just claiming that? Did he go along because he was a junior member with little clout, or because he knew the Bush big ticket items were popular? “In 2009,” Lizza tells us, “Ryan was striving to reintroduce himself as someone true to his ideological roots and capable of reversing his party’s reputation for fiscal profligacy.”
What ideological roots? Supporting unfunded spending programs during the Bush era and opposing funded programs (Obamacare) when the Democrats are in power? Throughout the article, Lizza lets Ryan pose as the honest kid on the block, telling his Republican elders “If you’re going to criticize, then you should propose.”
According to Lizza, “Ryan’s long-range plan was straightforward: to create a detailed alternative to Obama’s budget and persuade his party to embrace it.” But Ryan’s budget isn’t a “detailed alternative.” As I’ve said before, it’s pure bullshit. Ryan’s “budget” gives specifics for the popular items—lower taxes! lower deficit!—but leaves blanks for the unpopular ones. He says that the current proliferation of deductions from taxable income, like health insurance, mortgage payments, charitable donations, etc., will have to be reduced, but he doesn’t say which ones. He says he’ll cut domestic discretionary spending, but he won’t say where. Social Security he leaves untouched, and he kicks the Medicare can ten years down the road. There’s bravery for you! There’s mastery!
Sullivan’s post links to “The Paul Ryan Watch,” a less than reverent blog devoted to the dude, which, unlike Ryan Lizza, tends not to describe the striving young man as “tall and wiry, with a puff of wavy dark hair.” The blog notes that Young Paul was the only Wisconsin rep to vote against whacking a whole $1.1 billion from the Defense Department’s $613.9 billion budget request for 2013. Let’s cut, yes. But let’s cut responsibly.
