The New Republic Response to Paul Ryan: Gonna Kick Tomorrow!

This should brighten your Hump Day: a note on "the moral implications of the budget debate" in the wake of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal yesterday, from your friends, the editors of The New Republic. Sample:

A serious conversation about managing the federal budget is under way. And that's a good thing. Federal spending is growing faster than federal revenue. Absent changes in the law, future generations of Americans will likely have to raise taxes to unprecedented levels, dramatically reduce the reach of government programs, risk the macroeconomic consequences of uncontrolled debt, or some combination of all three. At best, these options are unappealing. At worst, they are a threat to prosperity.

But the fiscal conversation is unfolding in an unfortunate manner. For one thing, many in Washington seem to have lost sight of the fact that the economic recovery remains fragile and unemployment remains high. It is possible to believe that the deficit must eventually be addressed, while also believing that our present circumstances actually require deficit spending. […]

Deficits should be temporary, of course. Once the economy fully recovers, the government really should focus on reducing debt.

And so on. I liked it better in the original Los Angelese.

As we've argued here, Ryan's Roadmap 2.0 was a nice throat-clearer, if a bit undersized, lacking in courage on defense and other big issues, and tethered to some lousy numbers. He is moving closer to the R side of the ledger in the "radical or sellout" question, and it's clear when weighed against President Barack Obama's truly disgraceful budget proposal, there is only one Party Number-Cruncher in Chief even pretending to be serious about the ugly business at hand.

Judging by TNR and the liberal commentariat, this will continue to be a one-sided debate. We're spending too much money, kids, and we absolutely positively need to spend less, while changing the formulas for future outlays. Until the left half of the American political brain allows that truism to permeate its skull in a no-buts-about-it kinda way, either we're screwed, they're screwed, or both.

Oh! I almost forgot to mention the headline on this piece of "serious conversation": "Share the Wealth."

Comments

[Vermont Gun Owner]

Yeah man, I'm totally gonna quit tomorrow. This is my last one.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Exactly. Better to get the hangover with the next day than to go on a month long bender trying to delay the inevitable.

[blogimi Dei]

Jane says, "have you seen my wig today? I feel naked without it." She knows, they all want her to go. That's OK man, she don't like them anyway. She says, "I'm going away to Spain, when I get my money saved. Gonna start tomorrow."
"I'm going to kick tomorrow..."
"...I'm going to kick tomorrow."

[Fist of Etiquette]

Since I don't see any wax, that second New Republic cover suggests that Obama is learning it's better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven.

We're spending too much money, kids, and we absolutely positively need to spend less...

I know of a certain Nobel Laureate - no, make that two Nobel winners - who believe we (through the state) need to spend more during these times of economic woe. Much, much more. (Can you guess their names?)

[Almanian]

Laurel and Hardy?

[Almanian]

Who's the thin Hispanic man with the big ears on the first The New Republic cover?

[Old Mexican]

"That's no Hispanic. It's a space station!"

[DNS]

Who's the thin Hispanic man with the big ears on the first The New Republic cover?

Old Mexican.

*ducks*

[Almanian]

I only LOL because I *thought* exactly that!

[Almanian]

Also: "Share the Wealth"

*barf*

[cynical]

When they want something, they don't want to pay for it.

[Almanian]

Perry Farell said that once

[Old Mexican]

But the fiscal conversation is unfolding in an unfortunate manner. For one thing, many in Washington seem to have lost sight of the fact that the economic recovery remains fragile and unemployment remains high. It is possible to believe that the deficit must eventually be addressed, while also believing that our present circumstances actually require deficit spending.

It is possible to believe in fairies and pixie dust, and unicorns and gnomes. But economic reality always seems to set in.

[Almanian Republic]

Dude! Don't harsh my mellow!

[Cyto]

You (and Matt) missed the money quote:

This is where liberals need to make a stand on principle. Balancing the budget is important; but so is creating a fair society in which all Americans have basic economic security. The fact is that much of the moral purpose of government spending is to redistribute income downward?to provide for the least successful and least fortunate members of society. It's easy for that general principle to be lost in the detailed debates over which programs will be cut. But liberals shouldn't run away from talking about this overarching commitment. On the contrary, it is something to be proud of.

Emphasis mine. They come right out and say it... you don't have to infer anything. They are full-in for the exact inverse of everything the constitution says and everything that libertarians believe.

As long as anyone, anywhere has more than someone else - more taxes and more spending are morally compelled. So sayeth the Handicapper General.

[JoJo Zeke]

The fact is that much of the moral purpose of government spending is to redistribute income downward

... and a genuinely shameful number of so-called "libertarians" -- knowing, absolutely, that this was precisely the Obama Democrat Mindset, in perfect miniature -- allowed themselves to be stampeded like so many cattle by shrill, panicky yipes of "PALIN!!!11!"... and voted for him regardless.

Actions. Consequences. How do they fucking work...?

[Colin]

The left-hand side of the political brain will allow this truism to permeate its skull as soon as the right-hand side takes power again.

Unfortunately, that's exactly when the right-hand side will ignore it once again.

[Restoras]

"Until the left half of the American political brain allows that truism to permeate its skull in a no-buts-about-it kinda way, either we're screwed, they're screwed, or both"

It's both. No one in Washington will do anything about this issue until it is politically expedient to do so. Until that time, they will keep shovelling money around to secure re-election regardless of the consequences.

[P Brooks]

Ow, my head; I actually tried to read that excrescence. A nugget:

As Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, wrote recently, "Just like it may pay for a business to borrow ('run a deficit') in order to increase long-run profitability, so too for government."

I have no idea whether Stiglitz was quoted accurately, or the context. What they glibly fail to notice, as usual, is the glaring difference between investment and expense.

They're too wrapped up in the Moral Imperative of wealth redistribution.

We're doomed.

[Vermont Gun Owner]

I'll give the government that 'investing' in the salaries of IRS employees helps increase revenue later. Sending people another year's worth of unemployment checks after their benefits expire? Not so much.

[JW]

We're doomed.

It's just like a mortgage. A $14 trillion, 300-year mortgage.

Why do you hate the American Dream so?

[DNS]

It's just like a mortgage. A $14 trillion, 300-year mortgage.

Why do you hate the American Dream so?

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac distorted the notion of the "American Dream," in reference to your mortgage analogy. Their tentacles and the subsequent damage they wrought are everywhere.

[Tony]

The right side of the brain has already won in that we're talking incessantly about the debt apocalypse when we should be talking about employment. How odd that the most important thing we have to do RIGHT NOW or our precious children and grandchildren are ALL GONNA DIE is to enact the decades-old Republican wish list, otherwise known as returning the economy to the 19th century, where the ultrarich could afford a properly fully staffed estate or five, because hey it beats sweatshop work.

Either you guys have bought the plutocratic bait-and-switch bullshit completely or you're in on the game. If we're not talking about employment, then we're not really talking about budget health. The same goes for not talking about revenues.

[Mainer]

Don't..please...just...don't.

[JW]

D+ effort.

[Old Mexican]

Re: Tony,

How odd that the most important thing we have to do RIGHT NOW or our precious children and grandchildren are ALL GONNA DIE is to enact the decades-old Republican wish list, otherwise known as returning the economy to the 19th century, where the ultrarich could afford a properly fully staffed estate or five, because hey it beats sweatshop work.

This is sooo funny! I love it!

I am going to print it out and have it framed!

[JoJo Zeke]

the decades-old Republican wish list, otherwise known as returning the economy to the 19th century, where the ultrarich could afford a properly fully staffed estate or five, because hey it beats sweatshop work.

Even when Tony's only opponent in argument is the shrieking beehive of voices in his own head: he still invariably ends up losing.

[P Brooks]

Yeah man, I'm totally gonna quit tomorrow. This is my last one.

Dude, don't be ridiculous; that stuff makes you more witty and creative. You're just not taking enough.

Really load up, and that Michael Bay script will just stream from your fingertips, and soon you'll be RICH.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIICH!

[Vermont Gun Owner]

You're right. I'm just gonna finish this script, then I'll quit. Once I'm done writing, no more.

[P Brooks]

It's never a bad time to quote Professor Wagstaff:

No matter what it is or who commenced it

I'm against it!

[P Brooks]

we should be talking about employment

Don't forget the MULTIPLIER!

SPEND! SPEND! SPEND!

[Restoras]

D- for feeding the troll.

[section9]

I'm going to put in a good word for FDR here, the old Multiplier himself.

At least when he had the WPA and the CCC up and going, he put people to work.

This clown had to pay off his SEIU and AFSCME goons, who would never tolerate a mass employment program that they couldn't unionize.

Epic Fail, even by the standards of FDR his Bad Self.

Goldman Sachs is happy though. Their million dollar protection payment paid off rather handsomely.

[Restoras]

"Their million dollar protection payment paid off rather handsomely"

Well, they will share it with those in power afterall, as Goldman execs are about to pony up for O-bomb-a's re-election campaign

[Aresen]

Deficits should be temporary, of course. Once the economy fully recovers, the government really should focus on reducing debt.

Why does this remind me of Obama's 'plan' for withdrawing from Iraq?

[CCR]

Someday never comes.

[Warty]

otherwise known as returning the economy to the 19th century, where the ultrarich could afford a properly fully staffed estate or five, because hey it beats sweatshop work.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Otto]

A smarter strategy would take a balanced approach, one that attempts to remedy the underlying inefficiencies making insurance so expensive.

That would mean repealing some regulations, which, whenever it is suggested, is also de facto proof that the speaker wants to kill children and the elderly. The suggestions they listed in the article -

...encouraging doctors to form integrated groups and creating an institute that will study which treatments work better than others. Going forward, the government could bolster these efforts and add some new ones, like a government-run insurance option for people under 65?a measure even the Bowles-Simpson commission acknowledges would help save money.

are mostly top-down, bureaucratic BS. The one about "encouraging (!) doctors to form integrated groups" is just bizarre - how will that help cut costs?

[Warty]

Sounds like they're talking about collectivizing doctors. I can't wait to hunt me some Dr. Kulaks...

[alan]

The New Republic has been trying to make up with the rest of the left ever since their 1993 article 'No Exit' had a hand in killing Hillarycare.

They were made pariah then, and have clawed their way back to Team Blue slowly but surely over the last twenty years, so don't expect anything from them that refutes the Borg now.