With words like "radical" and "extreme" being liberally flung around, it's probably time to define our terms. After all, vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, we are assured, embodies both words in deed and spirit.
These days, radical ideas appear in many forms: a plan offering future seniors a choice of health care insurance or one that marginally cuts back on deficit spending or even a plan–when things get really, you know, German–that attempts to balance the budget over two decades.
If a person is to believe his media, writes David Harsanyi, he would have to accept that bringing discretionary spending back to 2008 levels, as Ryan has suggested, is like letting a Koch-funded plutocrat in war paint shred the social contract and throw it into a Klan-lit bonfire. Nearly every outlet, every interviewer, every reference about Ryan's plan is imbued with a tone that asks, "Isn't this nuts?"
But adding $11 trillion to the national debt, as Obama's proposed budget does, well, that passes the levelheaded policy test. One day, perhaps when fact checkers take a break from crunching every uncompromising decimal point in Ryan's budget proposal, they can explain how Obama's plan is supposed to work and how spending without end ends—you know, for the kids.