Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
If anyone asks you for an example of the rule that “fact checker’s don’t,” here’s exhibit A. It’s not that hard to see the many claims by President Obama which were obviously off or exaggerated in his recent "Paul Ryan is evil incarnate" speech – Ryan responded in a Facebook post here. But one of the constants in Obama’s speech was a flaw that's always irritated me about the way we discuss government spending.
Obama repeatedly said some version of “Ryan’s budget means you’re taking away X/so and so many people will lose Y.” But much of this is based on a false approach to the budget process in out-years. It’s as false as agencies that claim they’re being cut, when in reality it’s just cuts in the rate of growth, or less money than they expected to have in their coffers. And it’s a reminder why, as Reagan used to say, “the nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”
For instance, the Medicaid line: Obama can argue that anyone who is opposed to his signature health care law is for “take away health care for about 19 million Americans – 19 million!” by opposing his Medicaid expansion. But this is an absurd trick: none of those people are on Medicaid yet. It’s like accusing your dad of taking away your Red Ryder BB gun when he hasn’t even bought it for you yet. (Sidenote: of course, Medicaid has the worst outcomes of any government health care system and a burgeoning access problem which will only worsen when you add millions to it without anywhere near the additional provider support you need. Is adding people to a system where it’s statistically better to be uninsured than on Medicaid for cancer treatment, etc. really that great of a gift?) The point is that Obama frames it as “taking away” something that hasn’t been given yet. You’re not tossing people into the street, you’re eliminating an expansion which would imprison millions of people in the worst health care ghetto in existence.
The same approach is there throughout the speech. Obama:
“The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.”
But none of these expenditures exist yet. They’re projections from the past, out-year mortgage payments on the McMansion we lived in before things fell apart, assumptions based on the idea that we’ll keep spending like there’s no tomorrow.
Ryan’s office shared this response for just one aspect:
“There is simply no proposal or program contained in the House budget that would result in "10 million college students [seeing] their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each."… With regard to Pell, claims that this budget cuts Pell are false. Our budget ensures that we maintain the current maximum Pell award ($5,550), but it couples this maintenance of effort with a responsible policy that puts Pell on a sustainable path by ending the practice of Pell increases that A) are not paid for and B) simply enable rapid increases in college tuition. Spending on Pell has more than doubled since 2008. In contrast to the President’s budget, which pumps up the maximum Pell award for another two years without providing any funding to sustain the program for the long term, the House-passed budget reforms the program and fully funds it for the entire budget window. Also, there is growing evidence that Pell increases are simply enabling colleges to raise their tuition and fees, which shot up by over 8 percent last year alone. The House-passed budget calls for reforms to ensure that Pell spending goes to students who truly need it, not university administrators.”
Fools, there is no higher ed bubble! But back to Team Ryan:
“With regard to the President's number – we simply can't figure out how he got there. The only way to get even close is to measure our policy against a baseline that assumes that a temporarily lower interest rate for a subset of student borrowers written into a 2007 law fails to expire as it is scheduled to do under current law.”
Is Obama really assuming that a temporary decrease in interest rates was actually intended to go on forever? The number of consequences of that assumption would be an interesting future to plumb.
Obama’s approach essentially comes down to: “I have a good talking point, and I’ll make any assumptions I have to in order to use it.” I sure hope he will roll out this same ludicrous line should the Supreme Court strike down his entire law. “How many people will die at the hand of bloodthirsty Anthony Kennedy?” That’s good, he should use that.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
I love Obama's warning about our future should we stop and recognize our surroundings.
My take? Fine. Let _________ suffer. Even if my name falls in that blank. But first I'd pick the ripe fruit, like the president's two illegal-alien welfare-sucking relatives, Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Onyango.
Lets take the burden off the productive people. Let's cheer 'em on, not vilify them.
The world right now is just awaitin' to pop. Just awaitin' for us.
But we can't even make it to the starting line if nobody but Obama's buddies know where it is. And they, knowing that they won before the game began, have no incentive to show up.
Jul '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
All this budget talk is stupid fluff if we do not dramatically curtail spending and the Ryan plan is fairly slow to do that. Obama is hell bent on destroying the country. Say that to everyone who will listen and ignore those who do not while refusing to engage them on their ground.
Jan '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
These rhetorical detours are a constant feature of Obama's speeches. He seems to be the chief manufacturer of straw men.
The essential argument that Obama makes is that Ryan's plan wants to ... gasp ... cut entitlements. The only explanation that Obama can fathom is that Ryan must be trying to starve people.
Obama never mentions that these programs are going broke.
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
It strikes me that the way to beat Obama is to make fun of him. He may not be a buffoon. It may all be calculated. But he acts like a buffoon. He ignores the deficit. He refuses to face reality, and he stridently attacks those who even hint at facing reality.
Six months of advertisements mocking the man would do him in. And my bet is that he has a glass jaw. Hit him hard. Treat him with disrespect. And he will either crumble or start shooting himself in the foot in the manner of Newt Gingrich in Florida. Obama has never yet faced an opponent who did not either crash and burn before the election or pull his punches.
Remember Jeremiah Wright? John McCain did not have the moral courage to even mention the name.
Obama is vanity personified. Mock him, treat him with derision, and you will unleash suicidal fury.
Edited on April 6, 2012 at 12:35amJul '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Paul A. Rahe: It strikes me that the way to beat Obama is to make fun of him. He may not be a buffoon. It may all be calculated. But he acts like a buffoon. He ignores the deficit. He refuses to face reality, and he stridently attacks those who even hint at facing reality.
Six months of advertisements mocking the man would do him in. And my bet is that he has a glass jaw. He has never yet faced an opponent who did not either crash and burn before the election or pull his punches.
Remember Jeremiah Wright. John McCain did not have the moral courage to even mention the name. · 1 minute ago
Yes!, Mock the thin skinned narcissist at every turn. Deconstruct his facade and he will crumble.
May '10
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Agreed, Paul.
And Republicans are fools if they pursue debates with Democrats while we cannot even agree on the facts upon which all of our predictions and assertions are based. Make every debate about first principles and fundamental truths. Debating the implications of fictitious unemployment figures and complex tax adjustments gets us nowhere.
May '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
These types of arguments fall on deaf ears to the fickle voters you have to win in November who aren't already entrenched for a candidate. We're talking View/Oprah watching types here.
Best way to beat Obama is to go after him with ridicule and humor, highlighting the anemic "recovery", Keystone XL, Solyndra, stimulus, Obamacare, etc. Some the the latest SuperPAC ads do a good job of this.
Obama gets petty and mean when he is criticized. Dr. Rahe is right, he has a glass jaw.
Jul '10
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Paul A. Rahe:
Six months of advertisements mocking the man would do him in. And my bet is that he has a glass jaw. Hit him hard. Treat him with disrespect. And he will either crumble or start shooting himself in the foot in the manner of Newt Gingrich in Florida. Obama has never yet faced an opponent who did not either crash and burn before the election or pull his punches.
I agree with everything except the last sentence. Primaries count, and this guy beat the Clintons. That is no mean feat.
Mocking him will irritate him, and he will make mistakes because he is an undisciplined slacker who coasts on talent. But if a particular line of attack resonates, you can count on him delivering a rehearsed, well written speech on that subject, and he'll probably nail it. Barry is the 65% free throw shooter who always hits the front end of a one-and-one with the game on the line.
When that happens, Romney's campaign and surrogates must:
1. Throw any inconsistencies/ hypocrisies right in his teeth.
2. Start shifting to a new attack immediately, acting as if he dodged it in his speech.
Jul '10
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Paul A. Rahe: It strikes me that the way to beat Obama is to make fun of him. He may not be a buffoon. It may all be calculated. But he acts like a buffoon. He ignores the deficit. He refuses to face reality, and he stridently attacks those who even hint at facing reality.
Six months of advertisements mocking the man would do him in. And my bet is that he has a glass jaw. Hit him hard. Treat him with disrespect. And he will either crumble or start shooting himself in the foot in the manner of Newt Gingrich in Florida. Obama has never yet faced an opponent who did not either crash and burn before the election or pull his punches.
Remember Jeremiah Wright? John McCain did not have the moral courage to even mention the name.
Obama is vanity personified. Mock him, treat him with derision, and you will unleash suicidal fury. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
We need the right kind of Marxist for this. Groucho Marx, phone your office.
Mar '11
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
The audacity of incapacity.
Sep '10
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Liberal, socialist Democrats like Obama think the government can borrow, tax, and spend and that this will have a positive effect on the country. The arguments they make and proposals they put forth are consistent with this idea. Ryan states that there is a pending debt crisis that will occur in 2 - 3 years. His budget does nothing to seriously address spending or borrowing in the next 3 years. His argument is that promising to do something about entitlement spending in the future and making yet one more tax reform proposal will so stimulate growth that deficits as a percent of GDP will decline over time. Both men should be ridiculed; Obama for being wrong about the debt and Ryan for not addressing it seriously.
Jul '10
Re: Obama v. Ryan: Arguing Without a Baseline
Jim: Yes and no. The federal financial crisis is amplified by the national and international economic decline which in turn amplifies the federal crisis in a classic vicious cycle. But the causes of the economic decline extends far beyond government spending qua government spending. It is a combination of political driven nationalizations of public companies and industries and a federal regulatory regime for publicly held companies that is increasingly expensive and risk-laden. It is a new migration of companies from publicly held to privately held, a less efficient and potent equity model, in response. It is ObomneyCare and its little friends, the 1600 pound known unknown that flat out destroys attempts at rational risk analysis. It is the rapacious abuse of federal power on a daily basis to accomplish calamitous ends like $4 gasoline and the predictable aftershocks like skyrocketing food prices, travel prices, and the inevitable empowerment of energy exporting tyrants and inevitable decrease in the number of jobs the economy can support.
Dump bumbling Barry the ideologues' ideologue and his pay-to-play kleptocratic fascism, replace him even with the merely fashionably incompetent Romney, and the economic engine will make things better, if not good.