More Lying

I'm not sure which impresses me more: the breath-taking willingness of Paul Ryan to lie, or the fact that at least some in the media have, finally, remembered what their job means and are now willing to call Ryan what he is; a relentless and shameless liar.

Many bloggers and political junkies have been saying from the outset that Ryan was deeply flawed and so ideologically driven that he feels at ease in lying. And I don't mean making partisan speeches, or strident accusations. Nor do I mean stretching the truth, or making questionable interpretations, which all politicians have done. I mean Paul Ryan is making bald-face lies, in the strictest sense of the word. Intentional misrepresentation has become a rhetorical tool.

Ryan went so far over the top in his recent speech at the Republican National Convention that even the mainstream press could no longer play along with the "serious thinker" crap. The Washington Post said it was "Paul Ryan's breathtakingly dishonest speech."  Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic asked if it might just be The Most Dishonest Convention Speech...Ever?  The Huffington Post has a nice compilation from various sources, including ABC and CNN. And it turns out even Fox can't get past the lying, saying "...to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.

So what was it that Ryan was lying about this time? By all means, click the links above for more complete discussion. The short answer that most seemed to agree upon would be as follows:

1) Ryan once again claimed that the GM plant in Ryan's district closed on Obama's watch, when it didn't. What makes Ryan especially contemptible to me is that he had been called out on this claim a few days before, and didn't bother to make any correction. The second time around, more of the media caught it.

2) Ryan is still claiming that Obama is "stealing" $700+ billion from medicare.

3) Ryan also took Obama to task on the now nearly forgotten Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission, noting that Obama created it, and then seemed to ignore it. Sure, Ryan, you called it an "urgent report," but you yourself voted against it.

4) Again, Ryan blamed Obama for the gaping federal budget deficit, ignoring the fact that the biggest single reason for it is the Bush tax cuts, which Ryan voted for. And this is coming from a man who wants to cut those taxes even more for the wealthy,including zero taxes on capital gains. This would mean Romney would effectively pay zero in taxes, without the need for offshore accounts.Yeah, Ryan, that will really balance the books.

5) Ryan even tried to blame Obama for the credit rating downgrade a while back when the US appeared to be inching towards default. As Jonathan Cohn notes: "And why did that possibility exist? Because Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling, playing chicken not just with the nations’ credit rating but the whole economy, unless Obama would cave into their budget demands."

Here's Stephen Colbert's take: love how he skewers those who still want to make light of Ryan's lying. I'm looking at you, Erin Burnett.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Catfood Commission Sprays Wider Swath

Recall that President Obama's debt commission was created to find ways to address the federal debt. Stopping the endless wars and the obscenely expensive military-industrial complex would seem to be a good start, but remember there are Republicans involved. Recall also that Democrats in Congress did not support the debt commission, and voted it down. Obama created it by issuing an executive order, and now you have Republicans on the commission, including the duplicitous co-chair, Alan Simpson, talking about the need to "reel in" social security.

Credit is due to Dems who saw it coming and refused to enable Obama's enemies. Obama either did not see it coming (possible), or did see it, and thought it a good idea (more likely). You know, bipartisanship and all. Either way, Obama has a lot of explaining to do to those irresponsible whiners who put him in office. You know, the ones who actually voted for him.
 
Now the catfooders want to go further. Republicans on the commission want to use it as a platform to argue for, wait for it, additional corporate and capital gains tax cuts. At least they are consistent. All their efforts to maintain the status quo involve retaining benefits for the rich, such as extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and every effort to cut spending is done on the backs of the working class.

This election season is like a parody, especially Republicans. I mean, how blatant does it have to get?

More on the Catfood Commission

Here's some more background on the catfood commission and why we are inching towards oligarchy. First, Sabrina1 has some good commentary on the 18 members. The original article appears in Business Insider. Not surprisingly, corporate America is well represented, Wall Street in particular. Look through that list and see if you find anyone who is unequivocably for America's marginalized, poor, or handicapped. Any union members, farmers, or unskilled laborers? Main Street USA? You know, the very people who pay into SS and need it.  There is Andy Stern, that is one for labor, but even he is considering partial privatization.

It is breathtakingly obscene to see three things converging; the first is that most Republicans are insisting that social security, long thought to be an untouchable third rail, should be curtailed (if not outright repealed); second, these same people actually campaign on making the Bush tax cuts permanent; and the third is that most observers sense that Republicans may gain enough seats in November to regain control.
 
So, let's see: the argument is reduce SS benefits to help fight the deficit, though it would have no effect, and keep tax cuts for the rich, though doing so unequivocably will add deeply to that same deficit, and of course, the national debt. Bear in mind they are not implying this, and we are not inferring or reading between anyone's lines: Republicans are saying this explicitly; they are running on it.

These SOBs should be laughed out of the building, but they are dangerously close to returning to power. If that is not a motive to support Democrats, then our fate is sealed.

There is No Social Security Crisis, Mr. President

There is no social security crisis, so why is President Obama letting Republicans dominate the Deficit Commission, otherwise known as the catfood commission, as if there were? Perhaps you have seen the repugnant Alan Simpson, former Senator for Wyoming, dismissively refer to social security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits." Nice guy. And it overlooks the fact the people spend a lifetime of working, all the while contributing to social security. In other words, people pay into it, but Simpson acts like recipients are addicted to something they don't deserve. 

The commission was originally tasked with addressing the federal deficit. That is a semi-legit subject, but a politically dangerous tactic for President Obama because the commission has chosen to concentrate on social security, which is solvent and does not contribute to the federal deficit.  Unless, of course, Obama buys into the Republican meme that social security must be cut. It sure seems like it. When you look at the people on the commission, you would think it was Republicans who won in 2008

Jane Hamsher has written a detailed and eloquent piece on the catfood commission (as in what Republicans expect retirees to eat if the commission gets its way). Republican disdain for social security is nothing new, but the real news here is Obama's role. Each party in Congress was able to appoint six of their own to serve. Umm, OK. And then the President appointed six members himself, for a total of 18 members. That seems fair too, yes? After all, Obama said he would keep social security strong, right?

Here is Hamsher on who Obama chose:

" * Chairman Erskine Bowles, described by Business Week as 'corporate America’s friend in the White House.' Bowles had negotiated the deal between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton to create 'private social security accounts' where 'taxpayers get some choice as to how to invest their contributions.' The deal fell through when the Monica Lewinsky episode jumped into the headlines.
    * As Bowles’ Republican Co-Chair, the President appointed loose cannon Alan Simpson, the former rich kid GOP Senator from Wyoming once famously said that those who were complaining that Social Security needed protection were 'people who live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to the Perkins restaurant to get the AARP discount.'
    * Alice Rivlin was appointed by Obama to be chief wonk of the Catfood Commission, a Brookings Institute fellow who had been funded by Pete Peterson and a strong supporter of raising the retirement age to 70 — resulting in a 20% benefit cut to Social Security recipients.
    * David M. Cote, the Republican CEO of defense contractor Honeywell"

So Alan Simpson was appointed by Obama. Oh, ferchristssake. But who knows? Maybe David Cotes will suggest that defense contractors help disentangle our military-industrial complex. It could happen, no?

Read all of Hamsher's article , including the role of billionnaire Pete Peterson who has worked for years to turn over social security to Wall Street. And for more background on why social security is not broken and why the arguments of Republican operatives are so disingenuous, see here.

This is discouraging. Obama may give in to deficit hawks on an issue that is supposedly untouchable. And he is doing this just before an election. Funny, ain't it how those who howl about how social security is in crisis, and how we must slash spending to reel in our federal deficit never suggest that maybe we take a look at our monstrously bloated defense budget. Or that we raise taxes on the wealthy.

It wasn't the working class that put the economy in the ditch, and it was not they who got $800 billion in bailouts and then rewarded themselves with massive bonuses, as if they actually made that money. That was our tax dollars.

And they accuse us of class warfare.