Skip to main content

Paul Ryan with nose extended like Pinocchio
Pinocchio Ryan strikes again.
Rep. Paul Ryan, perhaps feeling the need to rebuild his (undeserved) reputation as a smart guy after that whole Romeny/Ryan debacle, actually used real economists' studies for his newly released report on poverty. His budgets have always been held together with spit and baling wire, pretend numbers and savings based on wishful thinking and hypothetical future action. This time, he appeared to make an effort to base his conjectures in published data. However, the people who published these studies say, he twisted that data to his own ends.
[S]everal economists and social scientists contacted on Monday had reactions ranging from bemusement to anger at Ryan’s report, claiming that he either misunderstood or misrepresented their research.

Ryan’s paper, for example, cited a study published in December by the Columbia Population Research Center measuring the decline in poverty in the U.S. after the implementation of Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.”

One of the study’s authors, Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University and a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, said she was surprised when she read the paper, because it seemed to arbitrarily chop off data from two of the most successful years of the war on poverty. [...]

Barbara Wolfe, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said Ryan’s paper simply misstates the findings of one of her papers studying the effect of housing assistance on labor outcomes. [...]

Wolfe also objected to Ryan’s use of another of her studies, which his paper claimed found “Only a minority of families alter their employment decisions in response to Medicaid’s design.”

Ryan also misrepresents a study on Medicaid by Jeffrey Brown and Amy Finkelstein, according to Brown, the William G. Karnes Professor in the Department of Finance at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ryan ignored caveats in this study on whether Medicaid "crowds out" private insurance, that "there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed." That's just one of the Zombie Medicaid arguments Ryan makes, basing his arguments on cherry-picked data from real studies. All of which makes this:
President's budget isn't a serious document. It's a campaign brochure and a missed opportunity. http://t.co/... via @WeeklyStandard
@PRyan
even more galling. Paul Ryan is not a deep thinker or a policy wonk. He's an ideologue with a basic and profound disregard for the poor. This "report" shows nothing more than to what lengths he will go to dismantle the safety net.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:08 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (41+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:08:14 AM PST

  •  Paul Ryan: loser. n/t (9+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:12:28 AM PST

  •  GOP varnished version of truth (14+ / 0-)
    One of the study’s authors, Jane Waldfogel, a professor at Columbia University and a visiting scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, said she was surprised when she read the paper, because it seemed to arbitrarily chop off data from two of the most successful years of the war on poverty. [...]

    Barbara Wolfe, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said Ryan’s paper simply misstates the findings of one of her papers studying the effect of housing assistance on labor outcomes. [...]

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:13:42 AM PST

    •  Lying - it's what they do best (13+ / 0-)

      and it's all they've got

      If the Republicans ever find out that Barack Obama favors respiration, we'll be a one-party system inside two minutes. - Alan Lewis

      by MadRuth on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:21:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  unfortunately it seems to work. (9+ / 0-)

        A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

        by dougymi on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:34:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Seems The Dily Kos needs to apologize (0+ / 0-)

        The Fiscal Times misrepresented Dr. Brown's feedback on Ryan's analysis.  Ryan is correct.  So, about that alleged GOP lying....if I like my plan, can I keep it?

        "Rob,

        Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

    •  Next time just have Gohmert write it and bypass (7+ / 0-)

      all the bullshit.

    •  Ryan is correct (0+ / 0-)

      Read and rethink:  here's Dr. Brown vindicating Ryan.  Seems the fiscal times misrepresented Dr. Brown's comments, and daily Kos took the bait.

      "Rob,

      Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

  •  Ryan lies & he's evil because he's a Rethug (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, TomP, Matt Z, wader, JeffW, JML9999, terrybuck

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:22:30 AM PST

  •  The GOP Go-To-Guy....you betcha. (7+ / 0-)
  •  Krugman Gets Another Chance To Trash Ryan (24+ / 0-)

    His take from his blog this morning on the Poverty Report from Representative Malarkey

    I took Paul Ryan’s measure almost four years ago, back when everyone in Washington was determined to see him as the Serious, Honest Conservative they knew had to exist somewhere. Everything we’ve seen of him since then has confirmed that initial judgment. When you see a big report from Ryan, you shouldn’t ask “Is this a con job?” but instead skip right to “Where’s the con?”

    And so it is with the new poverty report.

    Give Ryan some points for originality. In his various budgets, he relied mainly on magic asterisks — unspecified savings and revenue sources to be determined later; he was able to convince many pundits that he had a grand fiscal plan when the reality was that he was just assuming his conclusions, and that the assumptions were fundamentally ridiculous. But this time he uses a quite different technique.

    What he offers is a report making some strong assertions, and citing an impressive array of research papers. What you aren’t supposed to notice is that the research papers don’t actually support the assertions.

  •  I think he believes his own BS (12+ / 0-)

    which just makes him even more disturbing.

  •  Thanks this this great post Joan. I just posted (8+ / 0-)

    about this same reports, borrowing from your fantastic title yesterday, "Seriously, Floriday. WTF? in Seriously, Paul Ryan. WTF? Ryan wants to cut anti-poverty programs because poverty still exists.

    Your title is so perfect, I could probably use it for nearly all of my posts for the next year. As in "Seriously, Christie, WTF?"
    "Seriously, Samson, WTF?"
    "Seriously, Wildstein, WTF?
    "Seriously, Boroni, WTF?"
    "Seriously, Putin, WTF?"
    "Seriously, Walker, WTF?"
    "Seriously, Cruz, WTF?"

    I propose you license us of this format to me, and author aspiring authors her for a 5% commission on related recs. I'm sure our programmers could work at a code adjustment, where 5% of recs are automatically deposited in your account.

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:42:50 AM PST

  •  Paul Ryan is a wonk (8+ / 0-)

    in the sense that when real economists read his stuff, their palms go "wonk" as they hit their faces.

    Purity is for primaries; in the general, our worst are better than their best.

    by blue aardvark on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:19:33 AM PST

  •  How can you tell he's lying (6+ / 0-)

    His nose is moving
     

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:21:09 AM PST

  •  So the people he used for sources in this pile of (10+ / 0-)

    shit are upset? Good. Hopefully they make a lot of noise about it. Constantly. In his home district. So he will lose his seat. So he can go on GOP wealthfare. So we don't have him trying to write national policy that he is incapable of understanding.

    Give blood. Play hockey.

    by flycaster on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:23:42 AM PST

  •  Without having read Ryan's report, and that is (0+ / 0-)

    a giant asterisk, because that means I also haven't done a side-by-side with the cited studies, but, with that HUGE caveat in mind ...

    You are never obligated by a study's findings.  You cannot cherry-pick or distort the data, but it is perfectly legitimate to decide a study's authors have drawn the wrong conclusion from their own work.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:30:27 AM PST

    •  Only if you understand the field and know WTF you (0+ / 0-)

      are talking about.  Ryan fails at both, so the other conclusion is what Joan wrote: the guy is lying.  Heck, dinotrac, Ryan is coming UP only in the sense that he is not plagiarizing by quoting without attribution.  There are several diaries just on DK about it.  Why would you give Ryan the benefit of the doubt without reading his stuff or the studies?

      •  It helps. (0+ / 0-)

        Certainly if you actually want to use the data to find a different result instead of simply saying that the methodology is wrong/inadequate, etc.

        Doesn't take a genius, for example, to see that a 95% confidence interval on a hundred variables is almost certain to produce something wrong somewhere.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:19:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh really? (0+ / 0-)

        It could also be that Ryan is fully correct, and Dr. Brown's feedback was misrepresented by The Fiscal Times.

        "Rob,

        Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

        http://www.economics21.org/...
  •  I more or less equate Ryan with those that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW

    think beating their kids (or their dogs) actually substitutes for teaching and suffices as "help".

    In Ryan's case, Reagan's old saw about the ten most dangerous words, " “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help" is actually true.

    This is Ryan's--and the GOP's--way to "help":

    Ryan intends to help you with medical needs by cutting medicaid, and getting rid of Obamacare (and yes, I use Obamacare because Obama uses it). In other words, don't get sick.

    Ryan helps the elderly by stealing their medicare and the medicare of those in the future.

    Ryan helps kids by nixing Head Start and other children's programs.

    Ryan helps people eat by stealing their food stamps.

    Ryan helps Veterans by undermining the support they need after the GOP sends them, endlessly, to war.

    And on and on.

    Reagan's line was prescient; it was meant for Ryan.

    The only hawk I like is the kind that has feathers.

    by cany on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:31:04 AM PST

    •  Wow, you are sick (0+ / 0-)

      Beating their dogs and kids?  You are twisted.

      Turns out Ryan is 100% correct.

      http://www.economics21.org/...

      "Rob,

      Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

  •  Ryan is a particularly dangerous (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chujb, JeffW, blackhand, JerryNA, Major Kong

    politician, on the level of Cheney and Cruz. He easily and calmly looks you in the eye and lies. He is frighteningly comfortable telling people he cares about them when he knows his policies are directly harmful to his audience. Do not take him lightly. His calm style, again like Cheney's, will win over many a voter.

    •  Harmful? (0+ / 0-)

      Lies are harmful.  If I like my plan, can I keep my plan?  Nope.

      Ryan's report is accurate, but the Fiscal Times misrepresented the feedback from Dr. Brown.  

      http://www.economics21.org/...

      Remarkably, one of the economists so cited was Dr. Brown, who had actually told the reporter that Ryan had quoted his research accurately. This prompted Dr. Brown to submit this comment to the online version of the Fiscal Times article:

      "Rob,

      Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

      Immediately after the piece appeared, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman published a blog post entitled “Flimflam, the Next Generation,” in which Krugman stated that Ryan’s “artful misrepresentation” of scholar papers was drawing “angry protests from the authors.” Krugman’s source for this charge is the Fiscal Times article. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times also published a column alleging that “scholars” termed the Ryan report a “mess” in which their work was “misrepresented,” also citing the Fiscal Times article as his source. If one does a Google search for “Paul Ryan poverty report,” the first link that comes up is a Daily Kos piece with a photo of Paul Ryan doctored to show him sporting a Pinocchio nose; its source regarding this alleged deceit is, again, the same Fiscal Times article.

  •  This seems appropriate right now (Humor) (0+ / 0-)

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:35:45 AM PST

  •  Ryan Has learned (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, gabriella, JerryNA, jbsoul, julesrules39

    his lesson from the Austerity Spreadsheet disaster.  Leave out specific data points that refute your position.  This guy is not stupid, he knows the media will not contest his purposeful lies.  Scary Guy, no conscience - typical Republican/Libertarian.

  •  "Paul Ryan misrepresents us in his poverty report" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, JerryNA, julesrules39

    If in the deal there were a tax break available to his rich benefactors, someone resembling me and wearing my socks, believes that Paul Ryan would misrepresent the christening of his own child.

  •  Politically AND intellectually dishonest ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    human1984, JerryNA, julesrules39

    ... what a guy! And, as Paul Krugman writes, probably enviously, a "Master of the Magic Asterisks" that fill in very important details, er ... later. As in the cartoon, "and then, a miracle happened!"

    Is there anyone running against Paul Ryan in Ryanville, WI, who can call him to account? Perhaps Ryan can carry any election, but it would be worth it to fund an articulate opponent and a lot of advertising of Ryan's crazy quantifications. A Truth Squad opponent with a simple platform of telling it like it is on the budget, deficit, tax reform, etc.

    Such a contest would draw media coverage, inside-the-Beltway commentary and national attention. With the strong possibility of a high-value return on the investment.

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 11:43:31 AM PST

  •  Republicans are Mean (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, julesrules39

    "He's an ideologue with a basic and profound disregard for the poor."  --  Applies to all Republicans, who march in lock step like storm troopers.
    As they say, mean people suck.

    •  Liars suck (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is a master at sucking, in your logic bondage.

      But, let's look at the truth regarding Ryan.

      http://www.economics21.org/...

      Remarkably, one of the economists so cited was Dr. Brown, who had actually told the reporter that Ryan had quoted his research accurately. This prompted Dr. Brown to submit this comment to the online version of the Fiscal Times article:

      "Rob,

      Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

      Immediately after the piece appeared, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman published a blog post entitled “Flimflam, the Next Generation,” in which Krugman stated that Ryan’s “artful misrepresentation” of scholar papers was drawing “angry protests from the authors.” Krugman’s source for this charge is the Fiscal Times article. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times also published a column alleging that “scholars” termed the Ryan report a “mess” in which their work was “misrepresented,” also citing the Fiscal Times article as his source. If one does a Google search for “Paul Ryan poverty report,” the first link that comes up is a Daily Kos piece with a photo of Paul Ryan doctored to show him sporting a Pinocchio nose; its source regarding this alleged deceit is, again, the same Fiscal Times article.

  •  John Travolta comments: (0+ / 0-)
  •  Rob Zerban - WI-01 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, julesrules39

    Send him a few bucks.
    http://www.robzerban.com/

    Send Ryan back to Janesville.  My apologies to Janesville.

    Lobbyist, PAC, SuperPAC - a bribe by any name is still corruption

    by GreatLakeSailor on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 12:13:32 PM PST

  •  There goes Lyin' Ryan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, julesrules39

    again.

    •  Nope, there goes lyin' fiscal times (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.economics21.org/...

      Remarkably, one of the economists so cited was Dr. Brown, who had actually told the reporter that Ryan had quoted his research accurately. This prompted Dr. Brown to submit this comment to the online version of the Fiscal Times article:

      "Rob,

      Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

      Immediately after the piece appeared, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman published a blog post entitled “Flimflam, the Next Generation,” in which Krugman stated that Ryan’s “artful misrepresentation” of scholar papers was drawing “angry protests from the authors.” Krugman’s source for this charge is the Fiscal Times article. Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times also published a column alleging that “scholars” termed the Ryan report a “mess” in which their work was “misrepresented,” also citing the Fiscal Times article as his source. If one does a Google search for “Paul Ryan poverty report,” the first link that comes up is a Daily Kos piece with a photo of Paul Ryan doctored to show him sporting a Pinocchio nose; its source regarding this alleged deceit is, again, the same Fiscal Times article.

      •  MoreThe Manhattan Institute? (0+ / 0-)

        Really?  You really need to get out of the right-wing echo-chamber.  Are you going to quote the American Petroleum Institute on Energy Policy?  The NRA on public safety?  John Clapper on National Security?  Christian Identity on Race relations?

  •  The Fiscal Times is also misrepresenting facts (0+ / 0-)

    It is ironic that in a piece accusing Congressman Ryan of misrepresentation Rob Garver of the Fiscal Times (on whom you rely for your evidence) misrepresented my response when I was asked if Congressman Ryan accurately reported my research on Medicaid and long-term care. I clearly stated that Congressman Ryan's representation was accurate and fair. The Fiscal Times posted a correction. Read more about the episode here:

    http://www.economics21.org/...

  •  You can't hide those Lyin eyes (0+ / 0-)

    At least Pinocchio was made of wood.  Ryan is supposed to have a heart,guess he is missing that too.  He deserves to get kicked out.  Can't add 1+1.  His budget plans never add up.  

  •  Ryan is 100% correct - Daily Kos Wrong (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry folks, but the alleged problem with Ryan's analysis has been firmly, unequivocally disarmed. The Fiscal Times mislead the  New York Times, daily Kos, and LA times.  Ryan's understanding and relaying of the work of Dr. Brown is fully accurate.  Time to post an apology and retraction.  ASAP.

    http://www.economics21.org/...

    "Rob,

    Speaking of “misrepresentation,” I take issue with your portrayal of my email communication to you as suggesting that Congressman Ryan incorrectly cited my work with Amy Finkelstein of MIT. You provided me the quote from his report and asked me if it was accurate, noting that another academic suggested it may not be. My exact response to you was: “That quote is an accurate representation of our work. My only caveat would be that although Medicaid has this effect, there may also be other factors that would continue to limit the size of the private market even if Medicaid was reformed.” The caveat was provided to help you – as the reporter – to understand the context for the citation in case you wanted to explore the policy implications of our work further and to help you understand why another academic might have felt the quote was inaccurate. But I did not suggest nor do I hold the view that Congressman Ryan “ignored” the caveat, as implied by your writing. Nor, as implied by the title of your piece, do I believe Congressman Ryan “misrepresented” my research. His citation was appropriate. Obviously, the interactions of Medicaid and long-term care are complex, and a full discussion would go far beyond the small summary they provided. But that is true of any summary - indeed, even our own abstract of the paper does not provide that caveat due to word count constraints. In short, I do NOT believe that my work was misrepresented in the Ryan document. Rather, I believe my email was misrepresented in your article."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site