Haven’t done one for a while
Right now someone who is really getting under my skin is … Paul Ryan
To start off with is his budget in and of itself. A budget he has introduced twice, and which is utterly and cravenly plutocratic. Crucify the poor and middle class while maintaining our bloated military-industrial complex and handing out big gifts to the wealthy and corporations, or as he likes to call them – Job Creators. Nice euphemism for plutocrats.
Then there is the deception underlying it
“Do you acknowledge poor people will suffer under this budget?” [Ann] Curry asked Ryan.
“No,” Ryan responded…
Really? let’s see what is contained herein
- $2.4 trillion in reductions from Medicaid and other health care for people with low or moderate incomes.
- $134 billion in cuts to SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.
- At least $463 billion in cuts in mandatory programs, such as farm programs and federal employee retirement.
- At least $291 billion in cuts in low-income discretionary programs, like Head Start, child care, K-12 education, job training, Pell grants and services for the elderly.
nooooo that’s not going to hurt one little bit. But it all consistent with his Catholic faith … except for the fact the Catholic Church itself completely disagrees with his aims,
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs fairly.
We support proposals in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 budget to strengthen programs that serve poor and vulnerable people, such as Pell Grants and improved workforce training and development. We also support proposals to restore cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as efforts to make permanent recent expansions of low-income tax credits.
But the military should be happy because he wants to give them more money than they asked for since they lied about how much they needed, right?
ROBERTS: Why did the committee choose to go against the advice of the generals?
RYAN: We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice. We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget. I believe that the president’s budget by virtue of the fact that when he released his budget number of about $500 billion, the number was announced at the same time they announced the beginning of their strategy review of the Pentagon’s budget. So what we get from the Pentagon is more of a budget driven strategy, not a strategy driven budget.
“There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars,” Gen. Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) told reporters aboard a U.S. military aircraft after a four day visit to Latin America. ”My response is: I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”
The deficit reduction is a fraud, as the CBO scoring is based on unrealistic assumptions, like health care cost growing only at the rate of inflation – here.
And finally he doesn’t even have the balls to specify specific cuts to programs, but only cuts to categories so that he can dodge any hard choices or responsibility,
This is an argument over semantics, and both sides have a point. Ryan’s budget sets numbers for categories of spending (see the tables at the end of this document). So “Transportation” gets $787 billion over the next decade. “Income Security” gets $4.7 trillion. “Global War on Terrorism” gets $494 billion. But there’s no specificity within these categories. It doesn’t drill into those categories to say what, exactly, gets cut, and how much it gets cut by.
So how big of a cut does the Bureau of Land Management take? We don’t know. How big of a cut does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s weather forecasting services get? No clue. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? Sorry. The “Concurrent Resolution on the Budget” offers some “Illustrative Policy Options” for each category, but nothing like a specific list of cuts to programs. Ryan — arguably properly — is leaving that for the relevant congressional committees to decide. In his speech, Obama anticipated this critique:
Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts — since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
Yes Paul, YOU are my Dick of the Week