"Paul Ryan’s 'economic doctrine thing' is just nonsense."

[ProSense]

Paul Ryan’s ‘economic doctrine thing’

By Steve Benen

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) talked to NPR yesterday about the differences between the parties when it comes to the budget and deficit reduction. Reader R.L. flagged this exchange as especially noteworthy.

NPR: As you look forward, if you’re going to reach an agreement with the Democrats that raises debt ceilings, avoids calamity, is there ultimately some room that you can imagine, for — from your standpoint — at least some nominal tax increase that gives the possibility for both sides to walk into a room and come out of a room and say, we got some of what we wanted here? Or is that absolutely…

RYAN: I don’t, yeah, I don’t see it. And let me explain why, and this isn’t a political thing. It’s an economic belief. It’s an economic doctrine thing.

<...>

Of course, the right-wing Wisconsinite doesn’t have — or at least can’t point to — any substance to bolster this approach. For Ryan, whose numbers never seem to add up, it’s simply taken on faith. It’s about “beliefs” and “doctrines,” which make for fascinating philosophical debates, but awful policy solutions.

Perhaps we should look at this from another angle. I’d love for the House Budget Committee chairman to reconcile his “economic doctrine thing” with evidence like this from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.



It’s more or less a conversation-ender. For Ryan, raising taxes necessarily means less growth and fewer jobs, while lowering taxes necessarily means stronger growth and more jobs. But “doctrine things” notwithstanding, we already know Paul Ryan is wrong, because we’ve already seen evidence that disproves his “economic beliefs.”

<...>

Paul Ryan’s “economic doctrine thing” is just nonsense.

[kenfrequed]

1. People need to make more noise about this.

Sadly too many of our fellow Democrats are talking in the language of the republican opposition. Again.

Tax cuts are bad for us. How many ways do we have to say this?

[Kind of Blue]

2. It was incredible to me how Ryan

said yesterday that it was an "economic belief." Belief, really?

Question: As you look forward, if you're going to reach an agreement with the Democrats that raises debt ceilings, avoids calamity, is there ultimately some room that you can imagine, for - from your standpoint - at least some nominal tax increase that gives the possibility for both sides to walk into a room and come out of a room and say, we got some of what we wanted here? Or is that absolutely...

Rep. RYAN: I don't yeah, I don't see it. And let me explain why, and this isn't a political thing. It's an economic belief. It's an economic doctrine thing."

http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136690509/ryan-shows-little-room-for-compromise

KnR

[bemildred]

3. He means dogma, not doctrine, it's not at all evidence based. nt