Trump is victorious. On to Act 2.

I've been posting less and have missed some opportunities to ridicule the pathetic plans of the GOP also-ran candidates. Did Cruz and Kasich really think they could overturn the clear result of the primaries? Maybe they did, and that shows how politicians lie to themselves. Maybe they didn't, and that shows how politicians lie to the people. It's probably some of both.

So now that Mr. Terrible-Horrible Trump is clearly going to be the GOP nominee, we'll seeing several new story lines emerge. The most ironic is the dance between Trump and reluctant GOP pols. Most will support him in the end, but supporting him is fraught with risk--the biggest risk being what will come out of Trump's mouth. So politicians like Paul Ryan are delaying their support, watching if Trump will avoid being a complete boor.

We'll also see who continues to resist Trump, and how Trump responds. Will he tear into them as he had before, or will he temper his response as a potential president should? Stay tuned.

It didn't work out that way...

Image: pinterest.com

Extras. "I coulda been a contenda" -- Ted Cruz complaining that Rubio wouldn't team up with him. Cruz doesn't seem to realize that he is extremely repellent, so being his No. 1 best buddy isn't a job many people will want. Ted Cruz's long history of being repellent.

The liberal blogosphere misread Paul Ryan

I'm not sure why, but most of the liberal-leaning blogs I read incorrectly predicted what would happen with Paul Ryan. In a previous post, I referred to this Bernstein article where commenters were overwhelmingly wrong in understanding the situation.

Here is Ezra Klein, also not understanding the situation:

"Ryan should hope he doesn't get the job."

No, Ryan hoped that he would get the job. He hoped that he would bridge enough of the divides in the House GOP caucus. It was important (to him) that the various factions would look like they can unite and actually accomplish something. It presents a horrible picture when people within the same party can't decide on a leader. Why should such people be entrusted with any more power, like, say, the presidency?

This was the grim picture facing Republicans. Most Republicans knew it. They knew that their chances of winning the presidential election were dropping if the House GOP continued to joust and wound one another.

Of course some House Republicans are so blinded by their principles that they don't acknowledge that shutdowns and default threats hurt their standing. You can't make the willfully blind see, and no one can convince some of these hardliners to stop the tactics. (Well, unless their money dries up.) But enough of the hardliners saw that, and accepted Ryan. And of course, Ryan would want the GOP to have good chances for the 2016 election, so of course he wanted this infighting to end. So it wasn't that hard to predict it would happen.

Blind to the signs

... or maybe it's harder than I thought. The hardliners were strong enough to oust Boehner and nix McCarthy. Was it predictable that they would accept Ryan? The conservative press was pushing against Ryan with stories about him being for bailouts, and especially amnesty--that most heinous of sins in the hard-conservative world.

Maybe I could see the signs that, despite the barrage, Ryan was on track. Others couldn't see those signs. They were fixated on the idea that this hard rump of the caucus wanted to run things, or that no sane GOP rep would take the thankless task. They didn't see any hardliners as seeing or being wary of the major negative consequences of the GOP House not being able to choose a leader.

Also ignored were signs that hardliners were moving to Ryan. Jason Chaffetz dropped his candidacy and endorsed Ryan. The Freedom Caucus was split. While pressure was put on those to stay strong and keep the fight, the number declared against Ryan was conspicuously low, only 9 or 10 out of a purported 40 members on the day I checked, which was 10/21. I could read this as a likely victory for Paul Ryan, but most commenters (or pundits) couldn't. Why so blind? I don't know. Of course, I was tipped off by Harry Reid, so I had that advantage.

Image: cagle.com

Extras. I didn't survey much of the huge liberal blogosphere to see who else was wrong, but I checked two favorites. In these three posts from Washington Monthly, no one mentions the threat to GOP presidential chances, ignoring this huge motivation to settle the issue. Jonathan Chait has a very good take on the situation. The GOP needs the presidency, and Ryan knows this. It's just a question of whether enough of the Freedom Caucus can see that Ryan is the best chance they have.

Of course, none of this is a guarantee that the wingnut factions of the GOP won't do something to ruin or greatly lessen the GOP's chances in 2016. I wouldn't ever rule that out.

Harry Reid tries to doom Paul Ryan with reverse psychology

This trick worked so well for Claire McCaskill when she ran a campaign ad asking if Todd Akin was too conservative. The primary voters in Missouri fell for it, but our Washington pols are supposed to be more sophisticated, right?

So, will Paul Ryan become toast after the blessing by Harry Reid? I don't actually think so. Harry Reid runs Hail Mary political plays with some regularity. Remember the super-secret confidence about Romney's taxes? It didn't work, but he tried it anyway. This is just another example of a Harry Reid desperate move. I'm guessing Paul Ryan's chances are pretty good, and Harry Reid won't be able to change that. But he stills tries.

Image: twogaybullies.wordpress.com

Update 10/21/15. I looks like I'm doing pretty well in my analysis. In a comment at Bernstein, I wrote this:

[Ryan's candidacy for Speaker] is a serious offer, and I think it's going to go through. He's the best hope for the House GOP. If it isn't him, they'll have weeks or months of turmoil, with debt ceiling problems during that time.

He'll probably be able to peel off enough of the hardliners... He's playing hardball by demanding a public endorsement, which might mean getting over half to endorse him. That's a pretty high bar. He might back away from that requirement if he gets enough support.

I also wrote that it wasn't a worrying sign if some Freedom Caucus reps were loud in their rejection, as long as the number didn't go above 20. According to this report, Ryan got support from 70%. I guess that means most are not as dumb as they seem. They can do some (political) calculus.

Honesty is less important, Part 2

All politicians lie.

I'm not sure I've written that yet in this blog, but that's been my opinion, backed up by observation, for some time now. I haven't found one nationally-known politician yet who hasn't lied. Even self-declared truth-loving former presidential candidate Ron Paul has lied.

So here's a case of another politician lying. Why should anyone look at it? Because it demonstrates a part of of the reason for the lies.

Paul Ryan went on a Sunday morning politics show and answered some questions about a statement in his new book. (Hint: new book = running for president.) He wrote that he knew the GOP's 2013 shutdown stunt was a suicide mission, but he didn't declare it at the time for "party unity."

A couple minutes later, he's asked whether he would support Ted Cruz if he were the GOP presidential nominee, or Rand Paul. At the mention of Rand Paul, Ryan actually laughs. That laugh could mean lots of different things, but it's probably not a sign that Ryan looks forward to that possibility. Yet, a second later, Ryan is affirming that he would support whomever the GOP nominated. And he probably would.

That's part of the problem with politics. You have to support a bunch of jackasses because they're in your party. And that's not totally stupid because the jackasses in your party aren't as bad as the real jackasses in the other party. Except sometimes they might be worse. Paul Ryan may actually think that Ted Cruz would be a nightmare and Rand Paul would do decades worth of damage in one term. But he can't say that.

I'd love for Paul Ryan to be able to say it, but we can't in our party-based system of politics. I wish I could nuke the whole thing except it would be back in a few years. I hate party politics but I don't see an alternative.

They're not heavy, they're my ...

Image: jackcalvert.blogspot.com

Paul Ryan is confusing me

I'm very confused. Paul Ryan has just released an overhaul plan for federal programs that help the poor. Why has he done this? This is the same guy who was the only Republican (almost) to put together a budget, and that budget slashed poverty abatement programs. And now he's for giving the poor a lot more help than his budget envisioned? I'm trying to make sense of this.

• Perhaps Ryan wants to have a better poverty plan than "cut, cut, cut" prior to announcing his intention to run for president. That would make sense. Let's call this Option 1.
• Maybe Ryan always cared about the poor, but he got so wrapped up in being the budget guru that he forgot about it. Let's call this Option 2.
• Maybe Ryan is seeing others in the GOP, such as Mike Lee, taking a lead in poverty issues, and he doesn't want to lose his status as the top idea man. Let's call this Option 3.
• Maybe Ryan is just a juggernaut when it comes to policy. He sees a vacuum, and he's driven to do something about it. Let's call this Option 4.

Does this have anything to do with the midterm elections? Maybe, but I don't see how. A major overhaul of federal poverty programs isn't on the agenda of either party. That is part of what confused me--this doesn't seem to be connected to the upcoming elections.

I hate this sense of not knowing the strategy behind this proposal. Maybe it will become clearer. What's more likely is that the plan will fizzle, sort of like the Ryan budget did.

Oh, I just realized one additional option, which we'll call Option 5. Paul Ryan is incoherent in his thinking and ideas.

Good, Now I'm not confused anymore. I can always fall back on this option. Phew, that's a relief.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extras. A post containing an interesting graph showing how benefits phase out as income rises. A post about how we have only 3% chronically poor. Is Ryan's plan a big program for a small number? Some good points there, but I have lingering questions about all the non-chronically poor, such as the poor children, poor elders, and poor disabled that are also mentioned in passing. That sounds like it adds up to loads more than 3%.

More character assassination from the GOP

We have a new talking point that is being widely adopted by the GOP. They are saying, in light of Obama declaring a few new programs created by executive order, that his is an "increasingly lawless presidency."
This talking point will work about as well as all the others, which means the conservatives can masturbate to it, but they will convince no one new. [Readers, I haven't suddenly gotten more lewd, it's just that I didn't censor myself this time.]

I'm surprised that's there's room for this president to become more lawless, considering that some opponents said back in 2009 that he was going to create his own private army.

Meanwhile, the rest of us sit back and yawn. Frankly, I don't know if Obama has acted more frequently beyond the scope of his powers or not. I do know that Congress has been more recalcitrant that ever in voting on his nominations, so I can't get too anxious about a few possibly illegal recess appointments as a huge affront to the Constitution and limits on executive power. After all, it's not like a few top level bureaucrats are equivalent to commissioning an actual private army.

The clearest overstepping of his powers occurred when Obama used military forces to aid the Libyan rebels. Congress gave no authorization at all--not because they were dead-set against the idea but because they were in a particular pissy mood and wouldn't vote for anything Obama wanted.  So rather than see the rebels languish, Obama ordered the military support in contravention of the War Powers Act. Congress may have been bratty enough to deny him authorization, but they weren't stupid enough to bring him up for impeachment when they were the ones who were acting like children.

If Congress, or particularly the House, won't start impeachment hearings against Obama over large scale use of military forces without authorization, then they probably won't do it over his new savings plan--that incredible bit of lawlessness.

But why do the conservatives start these new charges at regular intervals? Is it like the fashion industry where creating new styles drives sales which keeps the industry afloat? Are they truly oblivious to the effect on the rest of the country who are sick of this hype? Those are questions I love to force some conservatives to answer, preferably at gunpoint.

On second thought, this meme may shrivel within the week. The folks at HotAir care much more that Paul Ryan is trying to sneak in immigration reform than about yet more powers Obama is abusing. You just can't trust anyone.

Image: newscorpse.com

Hard decisions for the GOP, again!

So both Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are making noises about putting up a fight on the debt ceiling increase. One problem--they haven't decided what to demand yet. This is so much the same as earlier this year when the GOP met several times trying to figure out their strategy, and basically ended up with a strategy vacuum that was filled by Ted Cruz's "Defund Obamacare" fiasco.

Probably the GOP will plump for the a different fiasco this time. Just maybe they'll figure that a half-baked idea is worse than nothing at all, and will instead think through their position. Do they want to push for some more spending restraint? Entitlement reform?

They better decide damn quick because it's only 2 months until the debt ceiling is reached, and they can't be unveiling their position one day or one week before the deadline. The GOP looked incredibly stupid with their changing slate of ridiculous demands just before the government shutdown, so the GOP should know not to do that again.

But the problem has always been that having demands isn't enough. You must have specific, sensible demands. If the GOP wants spending cuts, what the hell are they? Is the pain balanced, or targeted only at their political enemies? It's going to be easy for Obama and the Dems to say "no negotiations" to a half-baked list of demands, but much harder if it's a well-considered plan. This should be obvious by now, but the GOP opinion leaders (the noise makers with their legions of dittoheads) are too cloaked in the conservative thought bubble to have noticed it.

I hope that the GOP decides on a small slate of targeted spending cuts. It's doable and they can run a PR campaign on it. There are rumors that they'll try to get some entitlement reform, but they aren't close to ready for that, with the exception of chained CPI. Entitlement reform will take a lot of heavy thinking from a bipartisan commission like Simpson-Bowles or the 80's Greenspan Commission. There's no way the GOP can get any meaningful entitlement reform in the next two months, so why the hell are they pretending otherwise? Again, it makes them look like ridiculous amateurs.

Meanwhile the Dems are just sitting back, letting the GOP shoot themselves in the foot. They're taking advantage to a small degree, but not enough to look greedy and untrustworthy. Somewhere along the line, the Dem leaders learned not to overplay their rather weak hand--not because they became responsible adults, but because they got their asses handed to them in the 2010 election. They learned how quickly the country will turn on them. The leaders learned, that is, not the noisy social justice element. Those guys still think the congressional Dems can play hardball to increase social spending and taxes. Some people never learn. Isn't that the truth.

Rushing to the next tactical mistake

Image: politico.com

Big/small deal: Political analysis

In my last post I discussed some of the fiscal aspects of the deal--the simple math, walking back part of the sequester, some fees--mostly small stuff.

The bigger impact of the deal is that it's a two-year budget. There won't be a government shutdown for two years. This is an even longer period than that covered by the August 2011 deal, which laid out the budget until after the next big election. Why is this for a longer period, instead of until after the next election? A good question to ponder.

The deal doesn't include debt ceiling increases. Why? To allow the Tea Party congressional members to do a bit of grandstanding and vote against the debt ceiling several times. The debt ceiling increases will pass with enough votes from Republicans and amid charges of RINOism and treason. Yawn.

The Tea Partyers and their organizations are trying to raise a ruckus over this deal, but John Boehner told them to shut up. Besides, it's a done deal because THE HOUSE ALREADY PASSED IT!!!!! Wow, that was fast, and was planned to be that way. The House gets to adjourn and soon the Senate will rubberstamp the deal too. And everyone goes home for Christmas unlike last year. If you're taking a Christmas trip to a national park or monument, they'll be open and staffed. [House vote: GOP 169-62, Dem 162 -32.]

The Tea Party is a clear loser in this. The only leverage they'll have is the very dangerous debt-default-no-debt-ceiling-increase gambit. Their numbers aren't high enough to carry out that dynamite trick, but they can still make noise about it. This article points out that Paul Ryan gains stature as an adult politician when you need one. No one is writing the same about Patty Murray (I just checked). She's still a hack in my book, but she can be a good little sock puppet for Harry Reid when he needs her.

So, what will the two parties do in the next two years? They could start the really tough negotiations on Medicare, Medicaid, and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. They could lob mudballs at each other for the next 11 months until the 2014 midterm elections. The GOP could continue its Cold Civil War, and it could completely explode. Since it doesn't take that many people to negotiate, we could have all this possibilities playing out at the same time. Any negotiations that occur will be only exploratory because each side will want to wait for the outcome of the midterm elections in hope for an improvement in their position. (I should clarify who might negotiate: the establishment GOP, the establishment Dems, certainly not the Tea Party GOP.)

This is a better outcome than I was expecting. They compromised without kicking and screaming, and actually changed the terms from the previous testy agreement. That shows a modicum of flexibility where I hadn't expected any. Wow. Merry Christmas, everyone. Peace on Earth, goodwill to men.

Image: itmakessenseblog.com

Big news about a small deal

Hooray! The budget deal was done with a few days to spare.

This isn't really a surprise. The hard work came in convincing the GOP to start negotiating and stop trying to defund Obamacare. So the real accomplishment was achieved get in October and consisted of getting the GOP to stop being crazy and act like adults. Since that deal, the adults have been in charge, and the adults were able to make a deal by splitting the difference. Of course, any fifth grader can probably average $967 and $1058 and get an answer close to $1012; it takes adults to do the math when it's billions.

The harder work was walking back some of the sequester spending cuts and putting other cuts or revenues in their place. The new revenues (called fees) are getting the press notice. The most notable one is the increase in the federal fee for airport security that's added onto the cost of airline tickets. This fee is increasing a non-painful $2.50 per ticket. It means that less general revenue (such as income taxes) will be needed to subsidize airport security, freeing the money for other spending, of course. This fee hike seems fair to me--it's not huge, it's not soaking one group, it's making the service pay for itself more. That's all good.

But what about those other cuts, which were supposed to be more targeted? I looked it up and it's the same cutting "waste and abuse." I hope they have actually done their homework and identified waste they can cut and therefore save actual money, not vapor money. But it's not really belt-tightening...

...except for federal employees, some of whom will now have to contribute more to their pension funds. This sounds fair too. It broadens the pain among the federal workers, who've suffered somewhat less than private sector workers.

The money that's been freed up is being split equally between defense and non-defense spending, so both sides are getting a small extra helping from the pot. That means there's not much budget discipline in this deal. It's sliding back from what the sequester tried to achieve--actual reduction in spending. I don't know how much of the sequester will actually go into effect. One article said 50% of what was planned for 2014 and 2015. So much for our collective attempts to rein in federal spending. We didn't even maintain half of round 1 of the cuts. We are sad wimps indeed.

I'd really like to see spending reduced in a gradual way, with the least effective spending targeted first. But Dems are set on protecting all their favored projects and so are the GOP. No one wants to give up anything on their side for the greater good. Sigh.

Image: opb.org

Extras. Analysis from the Heritage Foundation. The analysis of the airline fee increases is obviously muddled, which I discovered by following the link they helpfully provided. Some numbers from WaPo, an overview from the Atlantic Wire.

GOP wants negotiations, eh? Part 2

Robert Costa, the National Review reporter with all the recent GOP inside scoops, directed his twitter followers to this Wall Street Journal op-ed by Paul Ryan. Of course I read it.

Paul Ryan sounds reasonable--he wants "a breakthough" instead of a crisis. He correctly identifies mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as the biggest fiscal challenges. He wants to "talk specifics" and get the "conversation" going.

But here's what he doesn't say:

• He doesn't say how the negotiations should be conducted, or what timeframe is reasonable. You can't do any important reform of entitlements in less than three months, and it probably should be longer. We'll need a fairly long-lasting Continuing Resolution and debt limit to do that. Ryan isn't brave enough to admit this forthrightly.
• He lauds the 1982 SS reform, especially the rise in the retirement age. For some reason, he doesn't mention the major increase in the SS tax rate. Actually, we know the reason. He can't mention a tax increase because it's forbidden among "conservatives."
• He lauds the Medicare reform proposals he and Senator Wyden made, but ignores that he misrepresented Wyden's position and greatly angered Wyden in the process.
• He doesn't mention Obamacare, so delaying it, defunding it, or repealing it doesn't seem to be part of his plan, at least in this op-ed.

Of course he's right that both sides ought to sit down and talk. The Tea Party GOP members haven't allowed that because talk can lead to compromise, and compromise means the end of America. I don't know if Ryan is serious about new negotiations. This could be the mask of rationality over the same partisanship that's prevailed for the last 5 years. I don't trust Ryan when he says he supports "common-sense" reform. Normally Ryan equates "common-sense" as the GOP proposals. Back in 2011, he rejected the best common-sense proposals, which came from the Simpson-Bowles commission.

So I don't trust him. I'd like to see how he follows up on these suggestions. How specific does he get? Once I see that, I'll know whether he's serious or not. I won't give up on him at this point because a mildly reasonable Republican leader is an extremely rare and helpful thing right now.

Ready for heavy negotiating, or just the same old?

Image: uselectionatlas.org

Day2 roundup: GOP plan, maybe. Tea Party plan, no.

So two days into the government shutdown, where are we? The GOP still seems to be scrambling around for a plan, but perhaps there are glimmers of one. Robert Costa, reporter for National Review, seems to have the best inside information. I've been reading his tweets since about 10pm on 9/30/13, and it's interesting. He seemed to learn very quickly what the House leadership's next move would be, like the ridiculous call for a conference committee to work out a deal in, oh, 1 hour.

So this morning, Costa tweets that Paul Ryan is going to try for a combo dealing covering both funding and debt limit, that will be "fiscal." What does that mean? My guess is that negotiations will focus on budget issues, particularly spending cuts to lower the deficit. Delaying or defunding Obamacare won't be the focus.

But wait. Early this afternoon, Costa tweets that the leadership will follow the Cruz strategy of funding everything piecemeal--probably everything except Obamacare and the EPA.

Nope, that didn't last. Mid-afternoon, Costa is tweeting again about Ryan being the lead bargainer on a grand deal. Again, there's nothing about Obamacare in this.

Does the conservative press know about this? I checked HotAir. They're referring to Costa and Politico, and speculating that maybe Ryan can pressure the Dems on Obamacare, or maybe he'll go for a more "traditional" fiscal deal. Meaning--like the sequester, which didn't touch Obamacare.

At Breitbart, a no-name columnist wants to keep the Cruz plan, but it's not a forward-looking column about what could or will happen in the next few weeks--so no plan there. TownHall, NewsMax, nothing on the Tea Party plan. Only at RedState, Erickson wants go back to defunding Obamacare and threatening any non-compliant Republicans with oblivion. It will work!!!!!!

What are the Dems doing? Waiting for the Republicans to sew themselves together into a semblance of a political force and make their next proposal, which hopefully will make more sense and last longer than the three four throw-away GOP proposals of Shutdown Eve.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extra. Belatedly in honor of Ted Cruz:

Image:  hyenacart.com

Is the GOP for Simpson-Bowles?

One of the biggest surprises in the GOP campaign is the attack on Obama for not supporting the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan (capsule history and summary here). This is so surprising that Ryan's accusation against Obama caused mild-mannered political scientist Jonathan Bernstein to throw F-bombs, in capital letters no less.

So, being who I am, I wondered when this became a talking point for conservatives. They sure weren't embracing Simpson-Bowles in early 2011. So when did it stop being a corpse and start being a stick with which to club Obama?

Here's what I found.

• First, May 26, 2012. Newsbusters. Art Laffer on Bill Maher talking about the economy. The commentary is that the left didn't like SB because of entitlement cuts, and Obama followed the left of his party. Maybe so, it was already dead, due to insufficient congressional support. Obama wasn't even the coup de grace.

• The real spin starts on 8/15 with a piece for Fox News website. This is a balanced article about the political positions. Ryan lead opposition to SB, and Obama punted. The article said that Obama should have pushed the topic 2010-2011. Agreed.

• Breitbart.com had a story on 8/19. A cabal of political advisers encouraged Obama to let Paul Ryan go first, and then Obama would look sensible in comparison. The post says that Obama should have been the leader. Ha, ha. I think the political advisers were probably right. At that point, it was too late to lead on the issue for that year--the new GOP majority in the House had their pitchforks out and torches lit, so SB wasn't going to be considered. As Bill Maher says, Simpson Bowles would have gotten cooties if Obama endorsed it then.

I find it very hypocritical of Ryan, Breitbart, etc. to criticize Obama over his handling of SB since the GOP were even worse. The report came out as the new Tea Party Republicans were chomping at the bit to use their new power in the House. They tried a lot of brinksmanship on major funding bills and over the debt ceiling. Delicate negotiations or reasoned discussion of this bipartisan plan weren't on the agenda for the House GOP.

Funny - is Simpson-Bowles on the agenda now? (Ssh, it's just a prop.)

 Ryan honoring Simpson-Bowles in the breach - his partisan plan

Image: breitbart.com

Extra. The House reaffirmed its negative opinion of Simpson-Bowles in a 382-38 vote in March 2012.

Report from the GOP convention

[Warning: This post doesn't discuss the last day of the convention when Clint Eastwood rambled and yelled at a chair. For a serious discussion of that day, um, good luck. For funny twitter reactions, look here and here. If anyone wants to read about the other days, I've left this post up. But, really, why is anyone going to want to know about any other day?]

The first day of the GOP convention sounded pretty dismal. Ann Romney tried to make Mitt lovable, but left people still wondering if there anything lovable about him. Maybe you have to be a Mormon to understand. Christie talked about "hard truth" and left it at that, no actually hard truths, just the words. Well, no matter. The convention is a pep rally, not the strategy session where you assess your strengths and weaknesses. [Disclosure: That's my impression of Tuesday based on written reports. I didn't listen.]

Pawlenty, Huckabee

Tonight, I started listening during a drive. Pawlenty wasn't have bad except for not having a memorable moment. Huckabee insults Debbie Wasserman Schulz and then says "Bless her heart." He let the evangelicals know that it was OK to vote for Romney, but he stayed away from the current hot-button issue of abortion and let people know that contraception is OK too.

The "We don't hate" Women

Condi Rice had a good speech, and a great remembrance of growing up under Jim Crow, but her parents made her feel that she could grow up to be president. There was thunderous applause, making me wish she could have been the VP nominee. But she couldn't because she's pro-choice. I also remember that she was a yes-man to Bush and Cheney, and one good speech doesn't undo a hundredth of those years.

Paul Ryan

Susana Martinez had a good speech about boot straps. It sounded like her first use of Spanish was booed. I'll have to find out. [Can't confirm.] Paul Ryan started off slow and awkward, but finished strong. He said some phrases that are going to boomerang on him. He said that any measure of Obama has to take into account the condition of the economy. But how about taking into account the obstruction of the Republicans? A commentator pointed out that Ryan said Obama threw away the Simpson-Bowles plan. That omits Ryan's own role, which was voting against recommendations along with the rest of the House GOP commission members. Ryan played a huge role in torpedoing Simpson-Bowles before it even got to Obama. That's going to be an issue he can't duck in the next two months.

The GOP convention sounds middle-American. It hasn't been overly angry, or stern, and has avoided culture wars and blaming the poor. I wonder if the Dems can remain as positive as the Republicans were tonight. (Sure they can, sure.)

The Scary Future

Of course, the weak link, Romney himself, is coming up tomorrow. We'll see if he ruins the tone, weakens it, or actually enhances it. About Romney, I'm no longer an optimist.

Not the only blip in the pep rally?

Image: rt.com

Equivalence: Saul Alinsky vs. Ayn Rand

Thunderbolt! Saul Alinsky is supposed to be the political and philosophical inspiration for Obama. Ayn Rand is supposed to be the political and philosophical inspiration for Paul Ryan.

I'm not going to waste my time on all the charges and and countercharges. I don't see either of these modern day politicians being worshipful followers of these supposed gurus.

I call bullshit on both. The only use for either master/servant pair is to rip any idiot who's foaming at the mouth about a candidate's terrible political background. In that case, fire away.

Almost as sinister as ... Saul Alinsky

Image: gaprogress.com

Paul Ryan - A serious pick

PJ of Viable Opposition has asked for my opinion on the choice of Paul Ryan for the Republican VP nomination. I can't delve into the strategic and tactical considerations the way professional pundits do. This is just my gut reaction: it's a good, solid pick.

When the GOP didn't know what their fiscal program should look like, this guy provided the roadmap. When the GOP asked themselves WTF were they going to do about Medicare (without being too scary), this guy came through again. The only other Republicans to submit budget plans were Ron Paul and ...  Rand Paul?!? (And the RINOs on the Simpson-Bowles commission, but they don't count in this GOP.)

So there's a bit less pixie dust in the Romney campaign today. But there's still plenty because the Ryan's latest budget has plenty of handwaving.

I also notice that Ryan doesn't want to be the heavy who tells Grandma that she can't have spinal fusion or a kidney transplant or has run out of dialysis days, so he's passing the job on to insurance companies. Great way to handle that difficult issue, GOP. Now you don't even have to try to contain medical costs--that is being outsourced in the traditional GOP fashion.

Nonetheless, Ryan has given the GOP the method for containing Medicare costs. Under his plan, they would soon be deciding how large the pot of money is, and that's what Americans will get for their vouchers subsidized premiums. It's a better solution than the-sky's-the-limit. I can't say much more in its favor than that.

I look forward to a bit more substantial campaign, and a much closer look at the Ryan budget and its fudges. At least there will be some numbers--something for a nerd like me to crunch on.

Image: patheos.com

Flashback: Romney was always going to pick someone solid. At least the campaign should be more substantial.

A Bloomberg summary of Ryan budget positions.

Crude joke that you may want to skip. You can misread the headline as: Paul Ryan - A serious prick. 

Cutting to the bone

When it comes to spending, we have to decide what we want and whether we still want it when we find out how much we'll have to pay for it. That should hold true for government spending too.

Our government and other governments around the world have made a huge mistake decoupling these. They have been aided by willing lenders, or the sheer ability to print money and pushed by constituencies to spend, spend, spend without raising taxes.

Now, I have to remember that a lot of the good things in my life are due to government spending. My paycheck is partially funded by government spending. My kids went to town-funded schools. I drive on public roads. I receive public water and sewer services. I don't fear foreign invasion or plague or bandits because of protections provided by the government. I have to give credit: my government has provided a safe environment for me.

It's important for me to remember this, because when we start cutting government spending, I'm not going to want to cut things that I depend on for my basic safety. I can forego the new highways and high-speed rail but I want some public entity to make sure the bridges don't collapse.

That brings me to the Ryan budget. I've  read that he'll shrink the discretionary spending to 3.75% of GDP from the current level of 12%. This includes military spending, we know the GOP is loathe to cut. This doesn't leave much money for purposes like FEMA, national weather services, FDA, FBI, customs, etc.

It's been hard to figure out whether what the cuts are going to be. According to one analysis (p. 17), Medicaid, SCHIP (children's coverage) and health exchanges support will be cut in half over time. But Ryan's own numbers (p.90) show it dropping just 23% compared to Medicare. The budget outline is also very lean on what discretionary spending is going to cut. It has none of the honesty of Ron Paul's budget where he declares 30% cut to this department and 70% of that department.

So I have no sense that the Ryan budget would preserve the programs I depend on for my safety. That worries me enough, and my health doesn't even depend on Medicaid.

 Not enough funding? -- Collapsed bridge in China

Extra: A conservative analysis (possibly libertarian) of the Ryan budget.