EMAIL DETAILS

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

*From:* Eric Schwerin <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>
*Date:* August 20, 2012 7:41:08 AM EDT
*To:* Eric Schwerin <eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com>
*Subject:* *An Unserious Man - NYTimes.com*

An Unserious Man - NYTimes.com


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=1

An Unserious Man

Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of
pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, we’re going to have a
real debate about the nation’s fiscal future. This was predictable: never
mind the Tea Party, Mr. Ryan’s true constituency is the commentariat, which
years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose
proposals deserve respect even if you don’t like him.

But he isn’t and they don’t. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game,
although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined
the ticket.

Let’s talk about what’s actually in the Ryan plan, and let’s distinguish in
particular between actual, specific policy proposals and unsupported
assertions. To focus things a bit more, let’s talk — as most budget
discussions do — about what’s supposed to happen over the next 10 years.

On the tax side, Mr. Ryan proposes big cuts in tax rates on top income
brackets and corporations. He has tried to dodge the normal process in
which tax proposals are “scored” by independent auditors, but the
nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math, and the revenue loss from
these cuts comes to $4.3 trillion over the next decade.

On the spending side, Mr. Ryan proposes huge cuts in Medicaid, turning it
over to the states while sharply reducing funding relative to projections
under current policy. That saves around $800 billion. He proposes similar
harsh cuts in food stamps, saving a further $130 billion or so, plus a
grab-bag of other cuts, such as reduced aid to college students. Let’s be
generous and say that all these cuts would save $1 trillion.

On top of this, Mr. Ryan includes the $716 billion in Medicare savings that
are part of Obamacare, even though he wants to scrap everything else in
that act. Despite this, Mr. Ryan has now joined Mr. Romney in denouncing
President Obama for “cutting Medicare”; more on that in a minute.

So if we add up Mr. Ryan’s specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax
cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts — with the
tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while
the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income
families. Over all, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around
two and a half trillion dollars.

Yet Mr. Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. What’s the basis for that claim?

Well, he says that he would offset his tax cuts by “base broadening,”
eliminating enough tax deductions to make up the lost revenue. Which
deductions would he eliminate? He refuses to say — and realistically,
revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible.

At the same time, he asserts that he would make huge further cuts in
spending. What would he cut? He refuses to say.

What Mr. Ryan actually offers, then, are specific proposals that would
sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and
spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his
overall plan into deficit reduction.

If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is. Yet Mr. Ryan’s “plan” has
been treated with great respect in Washington. He even received an award
for fiscal responsibility from three of the leading deficit-scold pressure
groups. What’s going on?

The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance. Over the
longer term, the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it — and in
Washington, “fiscal responsibility” is often equated with willingness to
slash Medicare and Social Security, even if the purported savings would be
used to cut taxes on the rich rather than to reduce deficits. Also,
self-proclaimed centrists are always looking for conservatives they can
praise to showcase their centrism, and Mr. Ryan has skillfully played into
that weakness, talking a good game even if his numbers don’t add up.

The question now is whether Mr. Ryan’s undeserved reputation for honesty
and fiscal responsibility can survive his participation in a deeply
dishonest and irresponsible presidential campaign.

The first sign of trouble has already surfaced over the issue of Medicare.
Mr. Romney, in an attempt to repeat the G.O.P.’s successful “death panels”
strategy of the 2010 midterms, has been busily attacking the president for
the same Medicare savings that are part of the Ryan plan. And Mr. Ryan’s
response when this was pointed out was incredibly lame: he only included
those cuts, he says, because the president put them “in the baseline,”
whatever that means. Of course, whatever Mr. Ryan’s excuse, the fact is
that without those savings his budget becomes even more of a plan to
increase, not reduce, the deficit.

So will the choice of Mr. Ryan mean a serious campaign? No, because Mr.
Ryan isn’t a serious man — he just plays one on TV