It behooves Mitt Romney at this point in his campaign to market Paul Ryan as a fiscal hawk and deficit hero, despite some striking evidence to the contrary, like his votes for TARP, Medicare D and even George W. Bush's wars, each a budget-buster of its own on the road to fiscal calamity. Nevertheless, because the Obama campaign and the Democratic party have decided that the way to win in November is to scare Americans by portraying Mitt Romney as a callous figure who intends on dismantling government, killing your grandmother, and whatever horrible thing it is that they think will scare people into re-electing the president, liberals actually share Mitt Romney's goal of portraying Paul Ryan as a fiscal hawk, and worse. The New York Times published an op-ed today that tries to do just that:
More than three-fifths of the cuts proposed by Mr. Ryan, and eagerly accepted by the Tea Party-driven House, come from programs for low-income Americans. That means billions of dollars lost for job training for the displaced, Pell grants for students and food stamps for the hungry. These cuts are so severe that the nation's Catholic bishops raised their voices in protest at the shredding of the nation's moral obligations.
Mr. Ryan's budget "will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment," the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. "These cuts are unjustified and wrong."
Paul Ryan is so evil, argues the Times, that the Roman Catholic congressman has even drawn the ire of Catholic bishops with his budget proposal. The word of the Catholic bishops, in this case, should be taken at face value. But the Times is no friend of religious institutions or even of those same Catholic bishops. From a Times op-ed on "the politics of religion," published just a few months ago:
Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air…
This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church's doctrine on everyone.
Except, apparently, when that doctrine happens to align with a liberal agenda, then its a moral obligation for our political leaders. Thanks for clearing that up, New York Times!