Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin claims he has a “knack for numbers.” Not long ago, he unveiled his GOP budget proposal titled “Path to Prosperity.” Rachel Maddow criticized members of the media for their fawning coverage of Ryan and his
financial “magnum opus.” Said Maddow: “If the Beltway media could stop making out with Paul Ryan for long enough to look at what’s actually in his budget proposal, they might notice that some of the important numbers in it appear to be made up.” She added: “I doubt that actual numerically based fact based information will penetrate the smoochy smoochy love bubble surrounding Paul Ryan right now…there’s this cult of him being brave and bold and doing this difficult workout every morning. What he’s just introduced is not a feature on grit versus glamour in today’s GOP. It is not a pinup. It is not the brave story of a strong boy in a tough environment. It’s the official Republican Party budget for 2012, and the numbers in it are so wrong they are occasionally funny.”
Anne Lowrey summarizes Ryan’s proposal in an article in Slate titled Model Misbehavior: Why Paul Ryan’s budget numbers don’t add up: “Tax cuts to wealthy Americans foster prosperity that moves millions of (less wealthy) Americans back to work, with increasing wages. High earnings and employment bolster tax revenue. When combined with huge cuts in domestic spending and radical changes to Medicaid and Medicare, the budget balances out in about 20 years.” Lowrey goes on to explain, however, that Ryan’s plan relied on numbers provided by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis—which have been exposed “as a bit fantastical.”
Harold Meyerson wrote the following about Ryan’s budget proposal: “The cover under which Ryan and other Republicans operate is their concern for the deficit and national debt. But Ryan blows that cover by proposing to reduce the top income tax rate to just 25 percent. He imposes the burden for reducing our debt not on the bankers who forced our government to spend trillions averting a collapse but on seniors and the poor. The reductions in aid to the poor, says the budget blueprint that Ryan released, will be made ‘to ensure that America’s safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency.’ That’s a pretty good description of America’s top bankers, but Ryan’s budget showers them with tax cuts.”
Ryan claims his budget proposal is a “compassionate” one—but Pat Garofalo begs to differ. Garofalo says that the “Path to Prosperity” would “double health care costs for seniors, endanger vital Medicaid services, and likely increase taxes on the middle-class to finance tax cuts for the rich.”
E. D. Kain thinks that Ryan’s budget is not serious one. He says that it’s ideological—and suspects “that its intention is to shift the debate and make the Ryan budget the leaping off point for further budgets.”
There are many who would agree that Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” is indeed based on ideology. One might ask what the ideological foundation of his thinking was when he prepared the 2012 GOP budget.
Jonathan Chait provides us with an explanation of why Ryan’s budget helps those at the very top while hurting the middle class and the less fortunate in his Newsweek article titled War on the Weak: How the GOP came to view the poor as parasites—and the rich as our rightful rulers. In the article, Chait wrote about what has motivated both Paul Ryan and the Tea Party:
“In fact, the two streams—the furious Tea Party rebels and Ryan the earnest budget geek—both spring from the same source. And it is to that source that you must look if you want to understand what Ryan is really after, and what makes these activists so angry.
“The Tea Party began early in 2009 after an improvised rant by Rick Santelli, a CNBC commentator who called for an uprising to protest the Obama administration’s subsidizing the “losers’ mortgages.” Video of his diatribe rocketed around the country, and protesters quickly adopted both his call for a tea party and his general abhorrence of government that took from the virtuous and the successful and gave to the poor, the uninsured, the bankrupt—in short, the losers. It sounded harsh, Santelli quickly conceded, but “at the end of the day I’m an Ayn Rander.”
“Ayn Rand, of course, was a kind of politicized L. Ron Hubbard—a novelist-philosopher who inspired a cult of acolytes who deem her the greatest human being who ever lived. The enduring heart of Rand’s totalistic philosophy was Marxism flipped upside down. Rand viewed the capitalists, not the workers, as the producers of all wealth, and the workers, not the capitalists, as useless parasites.”
A couple of weeks ago, Tom Ashbrook moderated a discusson about Ayn Rand and Paul Ryan on his radio program On Point with Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic, Anne C. Heller, journalist and author of “Ayn Rand and the World She Made,” and Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks. The program was titled Ayn Rand’s Resurgence. In his summary of the program, Ashbrook wrote: “The American budget battle so far is really a battle of ideals. And at the back of a vocal chorus on the Republican/Tea Party right sits the philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand.” Ashbrook and his guests talked about “what it means to have “Atlas Shrugged” in the middle of the budget debate.”
Click here to listen to the program.
In an article for The New Republic, Jonathan Chait wrote more about Ryan, his budget, and Ayn Rand:
Ryan would retain some bare-bones subsidies for the poorest, but the overwhelming thrust in every way is to liberate the lucky and successful to enjoy their good fortune without burdening them with any responsibility for the welfare of their fellow citizens. This is the core of Ryan’s moral philosophy:
“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” …
At the Rand celebration he spoke at in 2005, Ryan invoked the central theme of Rand’s writings when he told his audience that, “Almost every fight we are involved in here on Capitol Hill … is a fight that usually comes down to one conflict–individualism versus collectivism.”
The core of the Randian worldview, as absorbed by the modern GOP, is a belief that the natural market distribution of income is inherently moral, and the central struggle of politics is to free the successful from having the fruits of their superiority redistributed by looters and moochers.
There is no doubt that Ryan has been impressed by the words and works of novelist/philosopher Rand. He declared his admiration for her in Facebook videos that he posted in 2009.
Facebook Videos Posted by Paul Ryan
Ayn Rand’s Relevance in 2009
Ayn Rand & 2009 America, Part 2
The Truth about GOP Hero Ayn Rand (Think Progress)
So there you have it—a GOP budget proposal for 2012 brought to you by Rep. Paul Ryan, acolyte and admirer of Ayn Rand. It’s a “path to prosperity” for those who are already prosperous.
SOURCES
War on the Weak: How the GOP came to view the poor as parasites—and the rich as our rightful rulers. (Newsweek)
Paul Ryan And Ayn Rand (The New Republic)
Rachel Maddow Tears Into Beltway Media For Paul Ryan Budget Coverage (Huffington Post)
Who’s hurt by Paul Ryan’s budget proposal (Washington Post)
Model Misbehavior: Why Paul Ryan’s budget numbers don’t add up (Slate)
Paul Ryan’s ‘Compassionate’ Budget Would Gut The Food Safety Net (Think Progress)
Paul Ryan And The Republican Vision (The New Republic)
The Man Behind Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan Got the Tax Cuts Wrong, Too (The Atlantic)
Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal Would Increase Public Debt Relative To Extending Current Law (Think Progress)
Paul Ryan’s Multiple Unicorns (New York Times)
What’s wrong with Paul Ryan’s budget? (Washington Examiner)
Tea Party Embraces Ayn Rand (Frum Forum)
A rebuttal only you can see is not a rebuttal but more like the rest of your posts: simple masturbation.
fuguewriter,
That’s right! I have nothing to offer to an individual whose mind is closed.
**********
“This is a spectacular demonstration of what Rand-haters have to offer, and I’m glad you both are making it a matter of public record.”
Quick…get a Notary Public to sign and and place his/her seal on the comments I’ve made on this thread. You wouldn’t want me to “disappear” them and have no proof that I ever made them!
😉
Buddha Is Hedging –
Can’t move the goalposts now. You claimed I never replied. Can’t claim it might be in moderation now. I’m challenging you to put your money where your mouth is. C’mon, shame the Objectivist loser. Show he’s a dishonorable charlatan just like his sociopathic hack writer leader, right here in public. Wager high.
If you evade this, I will thank you for your total concession. I’m waiting.
Stuff your fingers for all I care.
I’m having a great big ol’ laugh at your expense right now.
And it case that confused you, Fugue?
That means that either way? Only you can see it.
* taps fingers *
Elaine,
I’m betting he has the same hair too.
_______
Fugue State,
If you posted a reply to my 7:04 comment?
It is either lost in moderation or a delusion on your part.
Elaine M. –
You have nothing to offer here. Unable to respond to *basic* economic reasoning, yet long on insults.
Unworthy-of-the-Buddha-name –
As for Elaine “Miss it twice” M., given that her reply to my reasoning was “The world’s foremost expert on economics and global financial markets has spoken,” and *nothing more*, your claim that I evaded anything brings a smile. This is a spectacular demonstration of what Rand-haters have to offer, and I’m glad you both are making it a matter of public record.
I’m awaiting your wager, big guy. What was that about crickets after 2 minutes?
Buddha & rafflaw,
Methinks fuguewriter learned everything he knows from Prof. Irwin Corey, the world’s foremost authority.
fuguewriter,
I’ve responded to you on several occasions. You can read–but you cannot comprehend…or you choose not to comprehend. When one’s ears are covered, it’s hard for him to hear what others are saying.
I’ll listen to the words and reasoning of Joseph Stiglitz…rather than to the words and reasoning of a Rand acolyte who posts comments at a blog.
Elaine,
I think we may be giving a bad name to insects.
Elaine,
I loved the fly expert. Very appropriate.
Buddha is Freaking –
I am looking straight at my reply to you. How much are you willing to wager that I can show it you in a screenshot? Bet high.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Fugue State,
“1. Social Security, according to the government, is a lock-box trust fund of one’s own money. So it’s not government ‘aid’.”
No. It’s not. Social security is . . . .
________
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Elaine M. –
>> “The Hickman claim . . .
________
Elaine M. 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:51 pm
fuguewriter,
“I did. Though the onus is on those who claim it *is* valid to address the fatal flaws thus exposed.
_______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Elaine M. –
The onus of proof is on you . . .
_______
Elaine M. 1, May 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm
fuguewriter,
You claimed that what I posted was incorrect.
________
rafflaw 1, May 10, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Elaine,
Don’t confuse fuguewriter with facts . . .
________
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:02 pm
rafflaw –
Win a Nobel’ish economics . . .
_______
rafflaw 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:16 pm
FW,
I don’t need a Nobel prize to understand garbage greed . . .
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Elaine M. –
You don’t understand onus. I claimed . . .
_______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:21 pm
rafflaw –
Take a look in economics textbooks . . .
______
Elaine M. 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:33 pm
fuguewriter,
“I have cited facts that show that your analysis is fatally flawed.”
Please…what were those facts again?????
_______
rafflaw 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:41 pm
FW,
I think I will side with Krugman over your opinion.
________
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:44 pm
rafflaw –
That’s an unfortunate . . .
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Elaine M. –
I’ll not repeat myself a third time . . .
______
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:47 pm
What’s that noise?
Sounds just like . . . a Fugue in F Minus, er, Minor.
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Buddha Is Typing Not So Much –
A sadly . . .
_______
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Well you still haven’t refuted any thing I said in my rebuttal, sunshite . . .
______
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Come on . . .
______
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Facts got your tongue?
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Buddha Doesn’t Read Carefully –
I wrote a very and detailed reply to you. It shows up above – and, curiously, no reply from you.
_______
Elaine M. 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:07 pm
fuguewriter,
I don’t suppose you respect the views of of Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz . . .
______
Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:08 pm
There is no reply to this post: Buddha Is Laughing 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The one where I tear your initial “detailed reply” into tiny lil’ pieces, Ms. Can’t Read for Shit.
You’re kinda hard of understanding too.
_______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Buddha Is Blabbering –
Very long reply, up above. Somehow, that was the one you missed . . . When either of you prove able to correct or win, it’ll be quite a day.
_______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Buddha is Flailing
Let’s see … you post at 10:58 pm, then invoke crickets at 11:0pm . . .
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Elaine M. –
Links posted with copied text . . .
_______
Elaine M. 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Buddha,
The world’s foremost expert
_______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Buddha Can’t Read –
Okay. I’m looking at my reply above:
fuguewriter – 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm – Buddha Is Typing Way Much
There’s no indication of anything amiss.
______
fuguewriter 1, May 10, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Elaine M. –
In other words, you have no response,
________________
This is a summary, time stamped, of all the posts since my original rebuttal posted at 7:04 pm and listed at the head of this summary.
No where – not once – is there a counter-rebuttal on your part to my 7:04 pm post. Lots of evasion to Elaine and total evasion to my evisceration of your “detailed reply”, but . . . no counter rebuttal on your part.
And the history of posts verifies this as a fact.
That you see nothing amiss in claiming to have answered something you have clearly not answered is about par for the course for an objectivist and/or a sociopath. Or maybe you just can’t read or understand what you read. In any case . . .
Sure sucks to be you.
Looks like I’m right all over the place once again and you, like your Goddess, are talking out of your ass again.
Elaine M. –
In other words, you have no response, can only copy/paste text, and are a time-waster. Enjoy playtime with Boo-duh.
Buddha Can’t Read –
Okay. I’m looking at my reply above:
fuguewriter – 1, May 10, 2011 at 7:52 pm – Buddha Is Typing Way Much
There’s no indication of anything amiss. If you truly don’t see it, I’ll repost it in two parts. Perhaps it is in moderation due to length.
Buddha,
The world’s foremost expert on economics and global financial markets has spoken:
Elaine M. –
Links posted with copied text are not arguments. Neither is the argument from authority that two Nobel laureates say X. [Krugman and Stiglitz are hardly in complete agreement.] If I come up with three Nobel laureates who disagree, does that mean I’m right? This is why arguments from authority are not legitimate. Incidentally, I can more than match you Nobel laureate for Nobel laureate with regard to the free market. The vast majority of economists, academic and otherwise, support the free market. Look up Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek and his non-Nobel buddy Ludwig von Mises. Either of them could eat seven Krugmans and nine Stiglitz’s for a snacks.
Stiglitz’s claim that the financial markets were totally deregulated is nonsensical. Oh really? I could start a bank if I felt like it? I could offer savings accounts without FDIC insurance/regulation? I could originate a mortgage without RESPA requirements? I could trade in gold currency? The government gave up interest-rate interventions? Exchange-rate operations? There were no tariffs or subsidies, as with cane sugar and corn? Absurdity.
Buddha is Flailing
Let’s see … you post at 10:58 pm, then invoke crickets at 11:0pm. For someone who’s been missing a great big reply before his very eyes from many minutes before, that’s adorable.
Still not an Objectivist. Haven’t changed.