Paul Ryan has come up with his latest Republican budget proposal, and it changes nothing. It neither promotes economic growth nor reduces the budget deficit, as with past proposals. That's because its real target is to win some Senate seats by targeting Obamacare, for starters. And it can't do that without telling some whoppers.
You think there is gridlock in Washington now? If the GOP wins both houses of Congress in November, nothing meaningful will get done for two years, and many good social programs will come under crippling attack.
New York's progressives are confronting a tough decision. Stick with Cuomo in spite of his economic policies? Split off and run a third-party candidate? Sit in their hands?
Budgets are about priorities. Despite Chairman Ryan's rhetoric on fighting poverty and boosting opportunity, no fair-minded observer can claim that his proposals actually reflect those priorities -- or sugarcoat their harsh impact on tens of millions of low- and moderate-income Americans.
We knew before the meeting that economic inequality would be a topic of discussion, and afterwards we were told it was part of the conversation. Yet, I'm pretty certain that the elephant in the room was not discussed.
Someone needs to remind The Big Man that Americans don't elect angry, arrogant bullies as president, especially those from New Jersey who are embroiled in revenge scandals.
Ryan and Reilly can cry crocodile tears as they pretend to be having an "adult conversation" about "what's really going on," but the truth is nothing pleases them more than the continuation of the status quo.
Basic budget arithmetic suggests that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's coming budget will be at least as extreme as his budget last year, and likely more so.
The Ryan report grimly concludes that federal programs are "failing to address" poverty. Poverty certainly remains too high. But the report seems determined not to recognize the long-term successes of existing programs even when the evidence is in plain sight.
Economic policies often rest on assumptions about human motivation. What conservatives are saying to you is this: working for your money is not as good as instead of inheriting it.
Yesterday is yesterday, and progress is happening. Nevertheless, George Will's piece about Paul Ryan's comments still carries some assumptions -- assumptions of choice -- at least linked to the past, even while condemning people who hear them as such.
In light of blustering jingoists, is Obama weak or wise on Russia-Crimea? Then: Has DuBois's 'color line' been crossed by Ryan, Rangel or Rand? Will Dems lose it all in '14 but run the table in '16?
This week, the Democratic Party is the party of the people and the Republican Party is the party of the wealthy 1 percent. Too often the messengers of the Democratic Party forget that and get tongue-tied trying to be everything to everybody and end up getting everyone mad.
Ryan's statement has undertones of racial bias and ignorance, and it fails to acknowledge the depth of the context of America's dark history. A history that digs back to the tobacco farms of Jamestown, Virginia, then makes its way forward to the lunch counters in Selma, Alabama.
Even with the crucial anti-poverty programs we have in place, these are new and emerging faces of poverty -- the very opposite of the picture of poverty Ryan paints.
Most poor and working class families, whether black, white, tan or brown, would much rather be working and earning a livable wage than being excluded from the workforce by institutional situations whether policy driven or profit driven.