Skip to main content

The closer you look at Paul Ryan’s service on the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, the closer you get to another sub-three hour marathon.

Ryan was widely called out for voting against Simpson-Bowles as a commission member and then, in his v-p acceptance speech, pointing the finger at Obama for the commission’s failure. Just as deceptive, maybe even more so, is the reason he’s consistently given for voting “no” in the first place.

He couldn’t support Simpson-Bowles, he claims, because it ignored the elephant in the room, the continuing rise in Medicare costs.  “You cannot fix this problem without taking on health care,” Ryan said. The plan “doesn’t even take a step in the right direction. It takes many steps in the wrong direction from my perspective.”

Indeed. By then Ryan had introduced his own plan for overhauling Medicare, and it had no resemblance to the Obamacare reforms that were part and parcel of the Simpson-Bowles report. You could disagree with Ryan’s “no,” but the reason he always gave was both defensible and consistent. Another member of the Simpson-Bowles commission, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), voted “yes” but would later defend Ryan’s “no”; according to Coburn, it totally jibed with Ryan’s position at commission meetings.

It turns out, though, that Ryan clearly had at least one other big reason for opposing Simpson-Bowles. As a vice-presidential candidate, Ryan has proposed the elimination of capital gains taxes.  By contrast, the Simpson-Bowles report called for equal taxes on capital gains, dividends and wages; it was central to the commission’s plans for tax reform, central to broadening the tax base, central to the commission’s proposed lowering of marginal rates.

Did Paul Ryan oppose Simpson-Bowles, as he’s always publicly said, because it didn’t do enough to restrain Medicare costs? Or did he also in fact oppose it, as he’s never publicly said, because it would cut into a major source of income for the well-off, especially the richest of the rich? Could it be that his position on capital gains was his real reason for opposing Simpson-Bowles all along?

Michael Lofgren at Huffington Post pointed out the tax-deficit hypocrisy of Ryan's opposition to the Simpson-Bowles report. Strangely (to me at least), he gave Ryan a pass by not also pointing out that his public reason for voting against it might have been little more than eyewash.

Was it? It's an interesting question, and I'd love to hear Ryan's answer. If he's ever asked, you can be sure of one thing: he'll be slick.      

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The mode of the binary thinker, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, Lujane

    in whose brain everything is either yes or no, is ideally suited to every situation in which there are more than two considerations.  All the inconvenient truths or reasons get thrown out, leaving half truths, which are, of course, more deceitful than an actual falsehood because the process of elimination requires conscious intervention.  The person has to determine that the inconvenient information has to be discarded or disguised.

    It is thought that the lie will out because it's hard to keep a story straight. However, half truths are easy to remember while the whole truth gets forgot.
    Also, half truths, being partially true, are difficult to refute, if only because lengthy explanations turn people off.
    So, the liar has an advantage. Deception pays.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Sep 16, 2012 at 12:27:38 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site