Tag Archives: budget

Nice! Heavy Drinkers Live Longer than NonDrinkers

When was the last time you hear that being an alcoholic was actually good for you? Well a new report in a respected medical journal claims that abstaining from alcohol would increase your chances of … http://bit.ly/aQgwiH added by: itgrunts

Mayor takes $90,000 pay cut to help struggling Mississippi city

CNN) — The city of Biloxi, Mississippi, is in a financial rut. Its sales and gaming taxes have been sliding for two years. So the mayor is voluntarily taking a $90,000 pay cut and will supplement his income with retirement money. “I just thought it was the right thing to do,” said Mayor A.J. Holloway, who will earn $27,000 a year after the cut. The nationwide economic gloom has affected Biloxi, which was a tourist hot spot before Hurricane Katrina ripped waterfront properties apart in 2005. “We lost a lot of our businesses along Highway 90,” Holloway said. Many of those businesses decided not to rebuild along the scenic “Beach Boulevard” and relocated to other cities, far from the threat of a storm surge. The moves left the town struggling economically. Holloway proposed ideas on ways to reduce the budget, including new taxes. The city pays 100 percent of its employees' health benefits, in addition to coverage for dependents. The mayor suggested having the employees foot part of the bill for dependents. City council officials voted against both ideas. The city took out a loan with a $6 million line of credit just to meet payrolls. Biloxi subsidizes a regional airport about $115,000 a year, but can no longer do that. The same goes for various health agencies and nonprofits. Holloway said he will likely have to order furloughs for city employees. Meanwhile, the mayor is willing to put his money where his mouth is with an 80 percent pay cut that will free up thousands for the city budget. The city council is reviewing the budget proposals this month. If the budget is approved, he plans to keep his old schedule despite the new pay. “Frankly, I enjoy the work,” Holloway said. “And we have a great deal more to accomplish. I could go for another six to eight years.” And, the mayor says, the pay cut is not part of a re-election strategy. “I'm in my second year of my fifth term, so I have nearly three more years before I would be running for re-election,” he said. Despite the gloomy economic outlook, there are a few bright spots for Biloxi. The city was not affected by the oil spill that left millions of barrels of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. “We got some tar patties and some tar balls in spots,” Holloway said. But Biloxi never had to close its beaches. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/01/mississippi.mayor.pay.cut/index.html?hpt=C2 added by: onemalefla

Freeland: Obama ‘Should Probably Have the Balls’ for Another Stimulus

It’s been a challenging week for President Barack Obama.  His vacation ended.  He was forced to rebuke questioning reporters with a cutting, “We’re buying shrimp, guys.”  And now Reuters global editor-at-large Chrystia Freeland, accurately described recently by Media Research Center president Brent Bozell as “a deeply devoted Obama groupie,” is referencing what Obama-endorsed former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) termed testicular virility. On today’s CNN Newsroom, anchor Ali Velshi suggested a second stimulus might be needed, an idea Chrystia clearly liked: FREELAND: Well, I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, look, he is a Democrat. If you talk to Democratic economists — one of them, for example, Laura Tyson, who was a senior economist in the Clinton White House, came out with a very strong op-ed piece over the weekend saying we need a second stimulus. I think that is the consensus among Democratic thinkers right now. And, yes, I think the president should probably have the balls to say this is what I believe in and push it. It’s true, that would be publicly difficult, but this is not a moment for milquetoast measures. Things are really rough. Things are really tough, despite – or more likely because of – the huge stimulus Obama and his Democratic accomplices shoved through Congress last year.  Yet in Liberal Land, drastically increased government spending is like Jello, there’s always room for more.  Additionally, it takes a manly man to counsel Americans that spending even more is our only way out of economic woes. A man who’s really got that ol’ testicular virility.  Chrystia Freeland courageously shares that blunt advice with The One.  Even if it means turning CNN into PG-rated fare.              

Originally posted here:
Freeland: Obama ‘Should Probably Have the Balls’ for Another Stimulus

CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

Republicans are “exotic” and “extreme,” and against science too, CBS’s Bob Schieffer contended on Sunday’s Face the Nation. “You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions,” Schieffer lectured Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller , citing “you want to phase out Medicare, you want to privatize Social Security.” Miller countered: “I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme.” Next, picking up on Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim Democrats are “are centrist” while Republicans “are really off on the right wing fringe,” Schieffer pressed Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour “about that,” highlighting Miller’s “controversial stands” before asserting:  Isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. Barbour shot back: “Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history.” As for bicycles and the UN, Schieffer was apparently referring to an early August comment by Dan Maes, Colorado’s Republican gubernatorial candidate who is running against Denver’s Mayor, not Ken Buck the Senate candidate. According to an August 4 Denver Post article, “ Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns ,” he was making an argument about “Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.” The CBSNews.com summary post, on this edition of Face the Nation, also pivoted from Wasserman Schultz’s perspective: “ Tea Party Making It Harder for GOP: Fla. Dem .” Schieffer ended the show with a commentary decrying a federal judge for issuing an “injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin.” Without regard for the moral issues or how the latest breakthroughs have come from unimpeded research using adult stem cells (the ruling blocked only federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), Schieffer insisted “putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see.” He painted opponents as being against gaining knowledge: “As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.” After Schieffer repeatedly marveled about Miller’s pledge to work to cut federal payments to Alaska, in return for the federal government turning land over to the state, this exchange took place: BOB SCHIEFFER: You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions. First you say you want to phase out Medicare. You want to privatize Social Security. I have to say there are a lot of people in Alaska who are on Medicare and are getting Social Security. Isn’t that position going to be a problem for you in the election, in this general election? JOE MILLER: I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme… Later: DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: …Americans really are going to have a very clear choice set up in November between moderate Democrats who are centrist, where the country is, and Republicans who are really off on the right wing fringe. And there’s countless examples of that across the country. SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask Governor Barbour about that. What about that, Governor Barbour? Because you just heard Joe Miller, who may wind up as the nominee for the Republicans up in Alaska, saying he’s go out and campaign on less money for Alaska, less federal dollars coming in. He has taken several controversial stands like that and, I must say, to his credit he didn’t back off of them when I asked him about it this morning. But isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. HALEY BARBOUR: Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history… Schieffer’s commentary at the end of the August 29 program: Finally today, last week two people I know were diagnosed with colon cancer, one of the deadliest of all cancers. Because my wife and I are cancer survivors, because my mother died of cancer because she was afraid to go to the doctor, I’ve come to know a little about the disease. My friends have a serious illness, but there is a path to recovery that was not there not so long ago. As I talked to them last week, I was again struck by the remarkable progress science is making to give them that path. Being told we have cancer no longer means we’ve been given the death penalty. Like all scientific breakthroughs, advances in cancer research began and depend on basic research — science’s ability to go not where doctrine or tradition dictates, but where research takes it. Ironically, my friends were diagnosed about the time a federal judge issued the injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin. I have the greatest respect for those who disagree, but to me putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see. Their beliefs, too, were deeply held, but where would the store of knowledge be had their view prevailed? As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.

See more here:
CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

James Cameron Admits Some ‘Avatar’ Footage Will Never Be Released

‘There are things you will never see,’ he tells MTV News. By Kara Warner James Cameron Photo: MTV News The re-release of the biggest movie in history is just one day away! For the fans who haven’t decided whether to make the trek to theaters to see the nine extra minutes James Cameron and crew added to “Avatar,” we have some news about the impending release of the film’s DVD and Blu-ray editions straight from the source. When MTV News caught up with Cameron recently to discuss film’s re-release, we asked if fans will ever get to see everything via bonus features, extended cuts, etc. “There are things you will never see,” Cameron admitted. “But there’s a whole lot of stuff that will definitely satisfy the appetite of even the most hard-core fan in a big box-set DVD that we’re actually preparing right now.” In addition to preparing the film for the re-release, Cameron said his team is also prepping the special-edition DVD and Blu-ray versions. “It’s all happening at the same time, because the deadline for mass-producing stuff for the Christmas marketplace is pretty much now anyway,” he said. “The re-release that we’re doing now with the nine additional minutes is carefully architected for the theatrical experience. But we have more extended-play versions of the film or an extended version of the film that will be available in the Blu-ray, and there will be a whole bunch of supplemental stuff with about 45 minutes of deleted material.” Cameron explained that the reason fans won’t ever get all of “Avatar” comes down to money. “We got the budget to finish this nine minutes, and we got the budget to finish the 16-minute longer version [the special extended edition], and then beyond that, it didn’t make sense to finish all the extra CG and digital effects.” Will you go see the re-release of “Avatar” for the nine extra minutes or wait for the DVD and Blu-ray versions? Let us know in the comments! Check out everything we’ve got on “Avatar.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Videos MTV Rough Cut: James Cameron Related Photos “Avatar” World Premiere

Here is the original post:
James Cameron Admits Some ‘Avatar’ Footage Will Never Be Released

Open Thread: America Is Becoming The Soviet Union

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: America is becoming the Soviet Union! Is he right? 

See the rest here:
Open Thread: America Is Becoming The Soviet Union

NYT’s Herbert Rips Obama: He Should Have Exclusively Focused On Jobs

Are even the most liberal media members starting to realize the administration’s “Recovery Summer” campaign was a complete joke? Such appears to be the case for New York Times columnist Bob Herbert who on Saturday published a piece absolutely excoriating President Obama for not exclusively focusing on jobs after his inauguration last year: The Obama administration seems to be feeling sorry for itself. Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, is perturbed that Mr. Obama is not getting more hosannas from liberals. Spare me. The country is a mess. The economy is horrendous, and millions of American families are running out of ammunition in their fight against destitution. Steadily increasing numbers of middle-class families, who never thought they’d be seeking charity, have been showing up at food pantries.   That was just the beginning: Mr. Obama’s problem – and the nation’s – is that in the midst of the terrible economic turmoil that the country was in when he took office, he did not make full employment, meaning job creation in both the short and the long term, the nation’s absolute highest priority. Herbert almost sounded like a conservative: We were going to spend staggering amounts of money in any event. There was every reason to use those enormous amounts of public dollars to leverage private capital, as well, for investment in projects and research that the country desperately needs and that would provide enormous benefits for many decades. Think of the returns the nation reaped from its investments in the interstate highway system, the Land Grant colleges, rural electrification, the Erie and Panama canals, the transcontinental railroad, the technology that led to the Internet, the Apollo program, the G.I. bill. Herbert crescendoed to a conclusion: President Obama missed his opportunity early last year to rally the public behind a call for shared sacrifice and a great national mission to rebuild the United States in a way that would create employment for millions and establish a gleaming new industrial platform for the great advances of the 21st century. It would have taken fire and imagination, but the public was poised to respond to bold leadership. Indeed it was, Mr. Herbert. The problem is the presidential candidate folks like you helped get elected had absolutely no leadership experience whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Despite this, Herbert and his ilk fell hook line and sinker for “Hope and Change” without any examination into the possibility the person they were backing could pull it off. Now, almost nineteen months in with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likely about to head higher, those that aided and abetted the clothesless candidate are beginning to finally question his abilities. If they had done so when an unqualified junior senator from Illinois first tossed his hat into the ring in February 2007, maybe our country would be in far better shape. Makes you wonder when enablers like Herbert will start apologizing to the nation for shamelessly assisting its downfall.   

Here is the original post:
NYT’s Herbert Rips Obama: He Should Have Exclusively Focused On Jobs

Jon Stewart Vulgarly Attacks GOP Concerns for Rising Taxes and Deficits

Comedian Jon Stewart on Wednesday joined the growing liberal chorus attacking Republicans for their concerns about rising taxes and exploding budget deficits. The only thing different about the “Daily Show” host’s approach was that he needed vulgarity to make his point. Potentially even worse, Stewart in his opening segment Wednesday actually used CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to support his view that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be a good thing for the nation. Ironically, that was the only thing remotely funny about this sketch (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, extreme vulgarity warning, see BMI’s coverage as well ): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Deductible Me www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party “Let’s begin tonight in D.C.,” Stewart said. “It’s our nation’s capital. For the last 18 or so months Barack Obama’s been the President and Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress. Purely by coincidence, that’s the exact same amount of time that Republicans have expressed a newfound concern for our nation’s financial stability.” To set-up this “Republicans are hypocrites skit,” Stewart played clips of Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich warning against the budget deficit. At that point, Stewart said, “The deficit wants to skullf–k your mother. It wants to eat your children after it shows your wife a level of physical passion you’ve never been able to provide.” But here was the real punchline: Stewart played a clip from the August 1 installment of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS” when the host of that show told his viewers that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would instantly shrink our nation’s deficit by 30 percent. After the clip ended, Stewart said Zakaria was right. That would have elicited uproarious laughter from a well-informed audience, for as NewsBusters reported shortly after Zakaria made this pathetic claim, nothing could be further from the truth. Supporting our view, the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl has research that indicates these tax cuts were just a drop in the bucket of the overall federal budget deficit, and the real culprit is the explosion in spending – not the trotted out liberal misnomer that these tax cuts are responsible. Riedl explains the budget surplus forecasted at the end of the Clinton presidency was set to shift to a $6.1 trillion deficit and that the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts were responsible for a mere 14 percent of this shift. The true culprit: the liberal sacred cow of entitlement spending. “Instead of closing the long-term deficit by splitting the difference between tax hikes and spending cuts, lawmakers should address the source-rising entitlement costs,” Riedl wrote. Indeed. In fact, even if the tax cuts were extended, revenues are projected to rise above the historical average by 2017. Contrary to Zakaria and Stewart’s view, this leaves surging spending responsible for the entire increase in long-term deficits. Business & Media Institute adviser and Cato Institute fellow Daniel Mitchell agrees, and refuted Zakaria’s claim on his Aug. 4 podcast . “Our real problem isn’t that deficits are large,” he said. “It is that the government is far, far too big. That’s what we should focus on, so he’s looking at a symptom rather than the underlying disease and then if we have to look at the issue of federal spending and federal revenue – even under the Obama budget projections – while low now because of the economic downturn – are going to climb to their historical post-World War average. We do not have, in other words, a shortage of revenue in the United States or in Washington, D.C. We have too much government spending.” On top of this, as NewsBusters reported a few hours before Stewart made his foolish comments, a new study published by the liberal Brookings Institution found the savings associated with just letting the Bush tax cuts expire on upper-income wage earners – what President Obama is advocating – to be minimal when compared to the current deficit totals. But facts weren’t getting in the way of Stewart’s populist rant as he next asked a truly absurd question: “How exactly can you be for deficit reduction and extending tax cuts? How do those two diametrically opposed thoughts exist in the same Party platform?” Well, Jon, here’s how: the last time Republicans cut taxes while controlling spending in the mid-1990s, the nation produced budget surpluses for four straight years while adding 12 million jobs to non-farm payrolls. Alas, this is an inconvenient truth Stewart and his ilk have chosen to ignore for over ten years, and Wednesday was no exception as the “Daily Show” host then played a clip of Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) saying the following on “Meet the Press” Sunday: REP. MIKE PENCE (R-INDIANA): They talk about tax cuts the same way they talk about spending increases as though the government owned all of the money. They say, “Are they paid for?” Well, I think, I think deciding on a government spending increase is very different on whether or not we allow the American people to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars. Makes sense, right? After all, it is OUR money! Obviously not according to Stewart, for he not only seemed totally perplexed by Pence’s logic, he mocked it by asking, “So, you’re saying money the government gets is different than money the government spends?” Well YEAH, Jon! When the government is spending $1.5 trillion MORE than what it takes in, there is a difference! A HUGE difference! Clearly missing this indisputable fact, Stewart said the deficit’s opinion on this matter can be summed up with a clip from the movie “Goodfellas”: ACTOR RAY LIOTTA: Business is bad? F–k you, pay me! Oh, you had a fire? F–k you, pay me! Place got hit by lightning, huh? F–k you, pay me!” In reality, although he clearly didn’t know it, Stewart was making the conservative point about the current administration and Party in power: regardless of how the economy and the American citizens are doing financially, today’s government acts like a Mafioso thug demanding to be paid. Thank you, Jon – we couldn’t have said it any better.

View post:
Jon Stewart Vulgarly Attacks GOP Concerns for Rising Taxes and Deficits

Howard Fineman: Obama’s Economic Policies ‘Saved The Day’

Despite unemployment sitting at 9.5 percent and over 3 million jobs lost since this President was inaugurated, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman says the economic policies enacted by Barack Obama “were good ones and smart ones and saved the day.” Chatting with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Friday’s “Countdown,” Fineman was nicely set up by the shill asking the questions. “Does anyone — can anyone actually believe that the Democrats had then done nothing and had maintained that status quo that the current economic situation would be better instead of worse?” With the ball positioned nicely on the tee, Fineman chunked a drive into the water on the left (video follows with transcript and commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN: Time now to call in our own list political analyst, Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine. Howard, good evening. HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith. OLBERMANN: Despite what Senator DeMint claims there, in the downturn that started two years ago or more and Republicans policies were in place because there was a Republican executive in chief. Does anyone — can anyone actually believe that the Democrats had then done nothing and had maintained that status quo that the current economic situation would be better instead of worse? FINEMAN: No. I don`t think anybody can claim that, and when Barack Obama took action initially, and when he started making decisions or putting out the idea that he would make decisions even before he was inaugurated, Keith, you tend to forget, he had a firm hand there early on. He had Larry Summers advising him. They knew they were going to pump more money in with Ben Bernanke right away. Any fair-minded observer would say in those first months, those first key months, Barack Obama`s leadership and the decisions they made, which actually had their roots with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke in the previous administration, were good ones and smart ones and saved the day. You know, it`s an old American motto, an old Navy motto: Don`t just stand there. Do something. That`s practical American strategy — and that`s what Barack Obama did in the early days, and he was rewarded with very high poll numbers at the beginning for doing that. Indeed he was, for shills like these assisted the President and his Party in making the case that these policies if enacted would put a ceiling of 8 percent on unemployment and would indeed save the day. As it’s become painfully clear to most Americans that they were sold a bill of goods, the President’s approval rating is at an all-time low and the Democrats are looking at huge losses in the upcoming midterm elections. Regardless of such unpleasant realities, folks like Olbermann and Fineman continue to spin a yarn about how great these policies were. With this in mind, let’s look at the data then and now to see just how that day was saved by the man folks like these shamelessly helped get elected. In January 2009, there were 133.5 million Americans on non-farm payrolls. As reported Friday, there are currently only 130.4 million, over a 3 million decline. The unemployment rate in January 2009 stood at 7.7 percent. Today it’s 9.5. If that’s what Fineman thinks is saving the day, I can’t imagine what failure would look like. Yet, even this isn’t a full picture, for the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007. As such, their policies have been in place now for over two and a half years. In January 2007, unemployment stood at 4.6 percent, which means that under a Democrat-controlled Congress, unemployment has more than doubled with almost seven million jobs lost. If shills like Fineman and Olbermann want to blame this exclusively on former President George W. Bush, maybe they should reread the Constitution to learn that the legislature in our government creates budgets. The last budget Bush signed that was created by a Republican Congress had a deficit of only $160 billion. By contrast, the 2008 fiscal budget penned by Democrats had a $459 billion deficit. Only two Republicans voted for this in the Senate. Not one Republican voted for it in the House. As for the 2009 fiscal budget, the second created by this Democrat-controlled Congress, it produced a $1.4 trillion deficit. Once again, only two Republicans in the Senate voted for it with NONE in the House. To put this in even greater perspective, the final budget created by a Republican-controlled Congress and enacted by Bush called for $2.7 trillion in spending. By contrast, a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Democrat President have authorized $3.7 trillion in spending this fiscal year, a staggering 37 percent increase in just three years. Yet shills like Olbermann and Fineman want Americans to believe that our financial woes were all caused by Bush, and that the current President and his Party have absolutely no responsibility for the condition of today’s economy. Makes you sick, doesn’t it? 

Go here to read the rest:
Howard Fineman: Obama’s Economic Policies ‘Saved The Day’

Zing! Paul Krugman Says Rep. Paul Ryan’s ‘Drenched in Flimflam Sauce’: But Own Source Disputes Him

Paul Krugman’s Friday column in the New York Times attacked Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who has dared to present an intellectually honest budget, as ” The Flimflam Man .” Joseph Lawler at the American Spectator calls it ” unusually partisan even by Krugman’s standards ” and he’s right; Krugman calls Ryan’s efforts a “fraud,” Ryan himself “a flimflam man” whose work is (zing!) “drenched in flimflam sauce.” But Krugman’s attack backfired when his main source for his argument, the left-of-center Tax Policy Center, disputed his claim of bad faith on the part of Ryan. Krugman let his trademark petulance show, griping that the Washington Post was too nice to Ryan in a recent front-page article, and went further on his nytimes.com blog Friday morning , calling Post journalists economic ignoramuses: “One thing that has been overwhelmingly obvious in the discussion of Paul Ryan’s roadmap is that lots of people who should know better — including, alas, reporters at the Washington Post — don’t know how to read a CBO report.” (Incidentally, Krugman, feeling the heat from non-fawning blog commenters offering substantive challenges to his glib economic assumptions , now limits the length of those comments.) One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic. Which brings me to the innovative thinker du jour: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Mr. Ryan has become the Republican Party’s poster child for new ideas thanks to his “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a plan for a major overhaul of federal spending and taxes. News media coverage has been overwhelmingly favorable; on Monday, The Washington Post put a glowing profile of Mr. Ryan on its front page, portraying him as the G.O.P.’s fiscal conscience . He’s often described with phrases like “intellectually audacious.” But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce. Krugman’s gripes about Ryan’s call for “steep cuts in both spending and taxes” include the arguments that Ryan’s proposed spending cuts aren’t feasible, wouldn’t reduce the deficit, and would “cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich” while claiming “the plan would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population” and cutting Medicare. He got most of his points from “the non-partisan Tax Policy Center,” which is affiliated with two left-of-center groups, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. Showing intellectual integrity, The Tax Policy Center actually came to Ryan’s defense this afternoon (hat tip Joseph Lawler at The American Spectator): Krugman alleges fraud because CBO did not score the revenue side of the Congressman’s plan.  (This is correct as the Joint Committee on Taxation is responsible for providing the official revenue score of tax legislation.) Instead, CBO assumed that total federal tax revenues will be equal to “those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario…until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.” Contrary to Krugman’s claims, this assumption is not unjustified . Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP. Krugman pulled out his paranoia card at the end, insinuating that Washington is just so intimidated by the resurgent GOP (“deference to power” — what power?) that it’s afraid to call them out on their obvious intellectual fraud, a pretty laughable charge: So why have so many in Washington, especially in the news media, been taken in by this flimflam? It’s not just inability to do the math, although that’s part of it. There’s also the unwillingness of self-styled centrists to face up to the realities of the modern Republican Party; they want to pretend, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, that there are still people in the G.O.P. making sense. And last but not least, there’s deference to power — the G.O.P. is a resurgent political force, so one mustn’t point out that its intellectual heroes have no clothes . But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future. While Reason editor Peter Suderman admits that “flimflam sauce” is a “really devastating” comeback, he also has problems with Krugman’s analysis .

Read the original post:
Zing! Paul Krugman Says Rep. Paul Ryan’s ‘Drenched in Flimflam Sauce’: But Own Source Disputes Him