Dean Baker | Paul Ryan Wants to Shut Down the Government, Permanently
Monday, 26 October 2015 00:00 By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) speaks at the Conservative Political Action
Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, March 6, 2014. (Photo: Christopher
Halloran / Shutterstock.com)
Do you want to see more stories like this published? Click here to help
Truthout continue doing this work!
Everyone has seen the news stories about how Representative Paul Ryan, the
likely next speaker of the House, is a budget wonk. That should make us feel
good, since we would all like to think a person in this position understands
the ins and outs of the federal budget. But instead of telling us about how
much Ryan knows about the budget (an issue on which reporters actually don't
have insight), how about telling us what Ryan actually says about the
budget?
Unless reporters give Ryan a pop quiz, they really don't know what he knows
about the budget, but they do know what he says. And, he has said a lot on
the budget and much of it is very clear. In addition to wanting to privatize
both Social Security and Medicare, Ryan has indicated that he essentially
wants to shut down the federal government in the sense of taking away all of
the money for the non-military portion of the budget.
This is a fact that is easy to find for any reporter who could take a few
minutes away from telling us what a great budget wonk the next speaker is.
In 2011, when he chaired the House Budget Committee, Ryan directed the
Congressional Budget Office to score his budget plans. The score of his plan
showed the non-Social Security, non-Medicare portion of the federal budget
shrinking to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050 (page 16).
This number is roughly equal to current spending on the military. Ryan has
indicated that he does not want to see the military budget cut to any
substantial degree. That leaves no money for the Food and Drug
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, The Justice Department,
infrastructure spending or anything else. Following Ryan's plan, in 35 years
we would have nothing left over after paying for the military.
Just to be clear, this was not some offhanded gaffe where Ryan might have
misspoke. He supervised the CBO analysis. CBO doesn't write-down numbers in
a dark corner and then throw them up on their website to embarrass powerful
members of Congress. As the document makes clear, they consulted with Ryan
in writing the analysis to make sure that they were accurately capturing his
program.
So what percent of people in this country know that the next speaker of the
House would like to permanently shut down most of the government? What
percent even of elite educated policy types even know this fact? My guess is
almost no one; we just know he is a policy wonk.
The media's obsession with telling us that Ryan is a wonk, couple with an
aversion to telling us anything about where his wonkism takes him, is
unfortunately the norm for political reporting. We get a very similar
charade after every presidential debate.
Like frustrated theater critics, the network commentators will invariably
tell their audience which candidates were forceful or comfortable and which
ones appeared nervous or unprepared. They almost never delve in the
substance of the debate by explaining where candidates may have
misrepresented facts or be proposing policies with a proven track record of
failure.
This is 100 percent backward. Most people do not follow policy closely
enough so that they could realize if a candidate asserted a fact about the
budget or foreign policy issue that was not true. The reporters covering the
debate could provide very useful information by correcting such incorrect
statements and providing the necessary background. They could also highlight
instances where candidates seemed to be promoting genuinely new programs or
showing other policy insights.
While competent reporters would have an advantage over most of the audience
in policy matters, the commentators have no special expertise in determining
which candidates looked forceful or nervous. The millions of people watching
the debate are probably every bit as qualified as the network commentators
in recognizing a nervous or confident person. We are all interacting with
people all the time, and making judgments about their competence and
sincerity. There is no reason to think a political commentator at NBC or NPR
is any better at making such judgments than the people watching the debate
on television.
The budget wonkism of Chairman Ryan is a beautiful example of the failure of
the national media to take their job seriously. Telling us he is a wonk,
without telling us the content of his wonkism, is a bad joke which should
get people very angry at the folks who pretend to give us the news.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
DEAN BAKER
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior
economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at
Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of
Truthout's Board of Advisers.
RELATED STORIES
Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve Board
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Getting the Export-Import Bank to Pay Dividends
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Democrats Get a Gift From the Fed
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Dean Baker | Paul Ryan Wants to Shut Down the Government, Permanently
Monday, 26 October 2015 00:00 By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) speaks at the Conservative Political
Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, March 6, 2014. (Photo:
Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com)
. Do you want to see more stories like this published? Click here to
help Truthout continue doing this work!
Everyone has seen the news stories about how Representative Paul Ryan, the
likely next speaker of the House, is a budget wonk. That should make us feel
good, since we would all like to think a person in this position understands
the ins and outs of the federal budget. But instead of telling us about how
much Ryan knows about the budget (an issue on which reporters actually don't
have insight), how about telling us what Ryan actually says about the
budget?
Unless reporters give Ryan a pop quiz, they really don't know what he knows
about the budget, but they do know what he says. And, he has said a lot on
the budget and much of it is very clear. In addition to wanting to privatize
both Social Security and Medicare, Ryan has indicated that he essentially
wants to shut down the federal government in the sense of taking away all of
the money for the non-military portion of the budget.
This is a fact that is easy to find for any reporter who could take a few
minutes away from telling us what a great budget wonk the next speaker is.
In 2011, when he chaired the House Budget Committee, Ryan directed the
Congressional Budget Office to score his budget plans. The score of his plan
showed the non-Social Security, non-Medicare portion of the federal budget
shrinking to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050 (page 16).
This number is roughly equal to current spending on the military. Ryan has
indicated that he does not want to see the military budget cut to any
substantial degree. That leaves no money for the Food and Drug
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, The Justice Department,
infrastructure spending or anything else. Following Ryan's plan, in 35 years
we would have nothing left over after paying for the military.
Just to be clear, this was not some offhanded gaffe where Ryan might have
misspoke. He supervised the CBO analysis. CBO doesn't write-down numbers in
a dark corner and then throw them up on their website to embarrass powerful
members of Congress. As the document makes clear, they consulted with Ryan
in writing the analysis to make sure that they were accurately capturing his
program.
So what percent of people in this country know that the next speaker of the
House would like to permanently shut down most of the government? What
percent even of elite educated policy types even know this fact? My guess is
almost no one; we just know he is a policy wonk.
The media's obsession with telling us that Ryan is a wonk, couple with an
aversion to telling us anything about where his wonkism takes him, is
unfortunately the norm for political reporting. We get a very similar
charade after every presidential debate.
Like frustrated theater critics, the network commentators will invariably
tell their audience which candidates were forceful or comfortable and which
ones appeared nervous or unprepared. They almost never delve in the
substance of the debate by explaining where candidates may have
misrepresented facts or be proposing policies with a proven track record of
failure.
This is 100 percent backward. Most people do not follow policy closely
enough so that they could realize if a candidate asserted a fact about the
budget or foreign policy issue that was not true. The reporters covering the
debate could provide very useful information by correcting such incorrect
statements and providing the necessary background. They could also highlight
instances where candidates seemed to be promoting genuinely new programs or
showing other policy insights.
While competent reporters would have an advantage over most of the audience
in policy matters, the commentators have no special expertise in determining
which candidates looked forceful or nervous. The millions of people watching
the debate are probably every bit as qualified as the network commentators
in recognizing a nervous or confident person. We are all interacting with
people all the time, and making judgments about their competence and
sincerity. There is no reason to think a political commentator at NBC or NPR
is any better at making such judgments than the people watching the debate
on television.
The budget wonkism of Chairman Ryan is a beautiful example of the failure of
the national media to take their job seriously. Telling us he is a wonk,
without telling us the content of his wonkism, is a bad joke which should
get people very angry at the folks who pretend to give us the news.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Dean Baker
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior
economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at
Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of
Truthout's Board of Advisers.
Related Stories
Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve Board
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-EdGetting the Export-Import Bank to Pay
Dividends
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-EdDemocrats Get a Gift From the Fed
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Show Comments