He should be able to appreciate the difference between the cost of the cuts in his plan, and the revenue ramifications of the plan itself, but instead of giving a straight answer and then moving on to the rest of the plan, he chooses to throw out talking points instead.
Genius may be stretching it, but Paul Ryan is not a stupid man. When Chris Wallace puts to him the concern that the tax cuts within his budget amount to some $5 trillion on their own, Ryan pointedly refuses to give any figure on this issue, instead referring to the deductions he plans to add in later. However, as many have noted, this has been quite impossible because of the sheer obscurantism of Ryan’s camp in dealing with this issue. If the budgetary differences between Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan are to be the focal point of this election, it behooves us to take a look at the latter plan in a serious, critical light. The main sources I’ll be drawing on are: An interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the 2012 Vice Presidential debate, and an interview with journalist Jim Heath. Powell’s reputation may have been, it is nothing compared to the kind of media travesty that could have produced this kind of misconception. To steal a phrase from Christopher Hitchens’ excellent essay “America the Banana Republic,” Paul Ryan is a financial wizard “in the literal sense.” As a matter of fact, it is Hitchens to whom I owe the inspiration for this post, his having once labeled Colin Powell “the most over-rated man in America.” However undeserved Mr. While this characterization is appealing (perhaps particularly to those who are more concerned with the other side of that semi-homophone), the positions of the real man Paul Ryan do not bear it out. Recently, we as Americans have been subjected to the idea that somehow the man pictured above is some kind of mathematical genius, policy wonk, straight-talking politician who’s not afraid to “get fiscal” (I have to suppress a groan even typing this).
0 kommentar(er)
