Monday, March 26, 2012

Elsewhere: More Ryan, and Us, Lawyers

Over at Post Politics, I argued we're all "lawyers" when it comes to the Constitution -- that is, almost all of us, almost always, interpret the Constitution to make it consistent with our substantive preferences.

At Greg's place, I take more shots at Paul Ryan. Really, though, it's not at Ryan -- it's at anyone who takes his combination of bluster and bluff seriously. In particular, and I realize long-time readers will recognize this complaint, I just don't get the nonpartisan deficit hawks who fall for this sort of thing. I don't know...I'm certainly not the right constituency for this kind of stuff (that is, concern about budget deficits), so perhaps I just am missing something. But it sure seems to me that Ryan is exactly the kind of politician that people who care about deficits should oppose the strongest.


  1. It's indeed a puzzle. Even an experienced pro like Alice Rivlin got taken in by Ryan's apparent seriousness, though she seems to have recently realized his interest in working with her on some wonky proposals was actually just disingenuous window-dressing for his blow-up-the-government ideology.

    The other puzzle is why, considering how disastrous the roll-out of his earlier grand strategy played with voters AND that his budget is never going to see the light of day beyond the House vote, he's doing it again in a Presidential election year (and effectively forcing Romney to endorse the greatest gift to Democrats in living memory).

    Stan Collender's come up with a theory, and by George, I think he's got it! You'll like this link: Paul Ryan Making the GOP Walk the Plank So He Can Run in 2016.

  2. Let me explain it for you. The people who claim to care about deficits don't actually care about the difference between Federal revenues and expenditures. What they really care about is "entitlements". Ryan's plan takes a meat cleaver to Medicare and Medicaid and other entitlements so it makes all VSP deficit hawks orgasmic even though it actually massively increases the deficit.

    1. Please define VSP. (Serious question.)

    2. Very Serious Person. This is a sarcastic term used a lot on liberal-leaning blogs to refer to members of the opinion media (e.g. David Broder, Tom Friedman, David Brooks) who portray themselves as superior to ordinary politicians and partisan activists. These people often pat themselves on the back for their support for "serious" positions on "deficits" and "entitlements" (also Iraq, Iran, etc.) when in fact their positions don't stand up to scrutiny by experts.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Who links to my website?