That’s how House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) described President Obama’s 2012 stump deficit reduction speech this afternoon. And understandably so. Ryan says he was “excited” to received an invitation to the president’s speech, and thought it was a potential “olive branch” to the GOP signaling the start of meaningful negotiations over the deficit. Not so, as we all know. I imagine being forced to sit through a smug lecture explaining how the serious plan you’ve just proposed to save America from a debt crisis is actually, in fact, fundamentally un-American, is not a very pleasant experience.
I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the President’s invitation to Mr. Camp, Mr. Hensarling and myself was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our countries pressing fiscal challenges.
What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in chief.
I guess it’s no coincidence that last week when the President launched his billion dollar re-election campaign was the week we launched our effort to try and get this debt and deficit under control and get our economy growing.
Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. Then with his budget he disavowed his iscal commission. He ignored all of its recommendations. Now he wants to delegate leadership yet again to a new commission. How are we to expect different results? And the measurements of results of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago.
We need leadership. We don’t need a doubling down on the failed politics of the past.
This is very sad and very unfortunate. Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells. By failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, the President’s policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future.
We’re looking for bipartisan solutions not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about it, we’re going to be here working.
Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it’s not change. It’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don’t need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions. If we don’t make tough decisions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow.
So I am sincerely disappointed that the President had a moment when we were putting ideas on the table, trying to engage in a thoughtful dialogue to fix this country’s economic and fiscal problems, decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launch his re-election, and pass partisan broadsides against us, making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done.
"Excessivley Partisan, Dramatically Inaccurate and Hopelessly Inadequate"
Jeeze. Which part of that doesn't describe Ryan's plan?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRyan hits it exactly. DeMint also:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
@AemJeff
Stipulating for the sake of argument that you're correct about Ryan's plan, is Obama closer to or farther from reality?
Reminds me of the complaints about Bush's spending. Yes, it was terrible. But dramatically increasing spending and deficits under Obama was not the "change" needed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's entirely possible that Obama is simply a jerk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNeeded just one more sentence before he turned and left;
"It is time(pause) , Mr. President, (pause) to grow up"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Jeeze. Which part of that doesn't describe Ryan's plan?"
Already calculating that you won't return in this thread to qualify, and most certainly be unable to quantify your statement, I'll ask anyway, "What part of Ryan's plan can you produce evidence that there is anything partisan, inaccurate, or hopelessly inadequate."
Be specific. Use the president's own deficit commission numbers, CBO benchmarks, and the OMB outlooks, for that is exactly what Ryan used to formulate his plan.
Go ahead, AemJeff...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGersen: I don't know enough about the details of what Obama said yet to have a strong opinion. Generally, I think he's proposing to to something on both the spending side and on revenue. I also assume that the effects of his proposal will be biased away from placing most of the the burden on the people with the least means. Assuming those things are true, I'm pretty likely to approve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@American: Vouchers for Medicare indexed to inflation (half the rate at which medical costs have risen) is an easy example of how partisan Ryan's plan is, especially when the same plan offsets whatever fiscal benefit those vouchers might represent with tax cuts designed to benefit high earners. (Regardless of your opinion about the effect of those cuts, it's a strictly partisan choice.) Ryans assumptions about employment, just like his assumptions regarding the growth of health care costs for the elderly, are fantasies. How much of this do you need?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy are we focusing on Ryan's plan here. The post really had to do with the lack of common sense that Obama demonstrates here. What a JERK! He INVITES Ryan to be there. Obama then essentially excoriates Ryan in front of him under the veneer of "reaching out" to the other side of the aisle.
Really??? That is just so low budget and low brow....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"How much of this do you need?"
A lot more than you gave.
I asked you to be specific, to not only qualify, but quantify your opinion, and I even gave you a primer on where to look. I can give more than what you gave simply by going to the Cato Institute.
I'm looking for more than your opinion. I'm not looking for any 'indexed to inflation' nonsense (since the effects of ObamaCare not being totally known, but devastating in its effect as generally believed). Now, if you can't back up your assertion, then please have the good grace to post that you simply don't know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul Ryan is the leader that Obama should have been.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ryans assumptions about employment, just like his assumptions regarding the growth of health care costs for the elderly, are fantasies."
Quantify this too, please.
Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're playing games. Neither the numbers nor the facts are in dispute. The assumptions I named are not borne out by any analysis of historical and they're key how Ryan's plan achieves its aims. And the point in regard to partisanship is self evident.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You're playing games."
No, I'm asking you to quantify and qualify your assertion(s), which you so far have failed to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust so there's a number on the table for the employment estimate Ryan used:
"An analysis performed by the conservative Heritage Foundation at Ryan’s request found the unemployment rate would be reduced to 4 percent in 2015 by Ryan’s budget"
source:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Of course Obama's speech was political. He's a politician. You think, maybe, that Ryan's plan isn't political? Seriously?
Ryan had guts to go after Medicare in a big way. But he's not insane. There are a lot of other sacred cows he didn't touch (for example, his plan doesn't explain how discretionary spending is going to decline to 3.5%), and he relies on some very, very optimistic assumptions about economic growth and unemployment to make the numbers come out right. Not to mention - it's only been scored by Heritage. What would you think about a plan offered by Nancy Pelosi that had only been scored by the Center for American Progress? It's just not how you proceed if you aren't playing the game.
Or maybe you think there are non-political politicians. In which case, come here, my friend and let's talk. I've got a bridge to sell you!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Just so there's a number on the table for the employment estimate Ryan used:
"An analysis performed by the conservative Heritage Foundation at Ryan’s request found the unemployment rate would be reduced to 4 percent in 2015 by Ryan’s budget"
You didn't finish the quote AemJeff.
Here, let me help..."...an incredibly low number when many economists believe the economy will not return to so-called “full employment” of about 5 percent until years after that."
Name these 'economists'. What are the 'facts' these economists are using to come up with their numbers? Where are their metrics? Sounds like a lot of equivocating to me.
It's fun to throw junk up on a screen and consider it fact, yes?
Here, let me help again, AemJeff
External Link
Look, man, you may be right. I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying you made a statement based on a pretense of knowledge.
I'm willing to bet that I'm closer to the truth than you have shown in this thread.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou should have learned by now, Rep. Ryan, that the president doesn't extend his hand nor does he offer olive branches. You were invited expressly so he could deliver that smug lecture to your front row face. You're lucky a lecture is all you got. President Obama is not a nice man.
You really think Obama has a clue about tackling the deficit/debt problem, AemJeff? He spent a good deal of time today talking about how we need to "invest" vastly more money in education, green energy and transportation (high speed rail). He's still claiming his health care "reforms" will reduce the deficit by $1 trillion. (That's been demonstrated false so many times that at this point, it's nothing more than a bald-faced lie.)
He will "demand" more accountability and efficiency from Medicaid. He will reduce medical costs by instituting health care managed by presidential commission. He plans to save money at Defense by conducting a "fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world." I shudder to think. And, as always, he pretends most of our problems would go away if only we would make the wealthy pay their fair share. Clueless. Absolutely, fricking clueless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePretense? Ok. I'm an idiot - let's stipulate that.
Now show me how Ryan and Heritage's projection is anything except an unsupported fantasy. Waving your hands while yelling "Hayek" is not an acceptable answer - Libertarian catechism notwithstanding. (At least you didn't helpfully suggest I pick up a copy "Atlas Sgrugged," as somebody did in another thread.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePretense? Ok. I'm an idiot - let's stipulate that.
Now show me how Ryan and Heritage's projection is anything except an unsupported fantasy. Waving your hands while yelling "Hayek" is not an acceptable answer - Libertarian catechism notwithstanding. (At least you didn't helpfully suggest I pick up a copy "Atlas Sgrugged," as somebody did in another thread.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse