Can You Deserve Respect But Be Wrong? ctd

Here’s a bit of a roundup from around the web on Paul Ryan and his budget plan.

Paul Krugman:

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

And that’s about the same as the budget office’s estimate of the 2020 deficit under the Obama administration’s plans. That is, Mr. Ryan may speak about the deficit in apocalyptic terms, but even if you believe that his proposed spending cuts are feasible — which you shouldn’t — the Roadmap wouldn’t reduce the deficit. All it would do is cut benefits for the middle class while slashing taxes on the rich.

I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the “Roadmap,” but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average.

What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending – not from a lack of tax revenue.

Krugman also recycles the disingenuous claim that the “Roadmap” – the only proposal certified to make our entitlement programs solvent – would “end Medicare as we know it.”

Ironically, doing nothing, as Democrats would prefer, is certain to end entitlement programs as we know them, and in the process, beneficiaries would face painful cuts to these programs. Conversely, the “Roadmap” would pre-empt these cuts in a way that prevents unnecessary disruptions for current beneficiaries.

In other words, Ryan could have gotten JCT to do a 10-year estimate; it just wouldn’t go beyond that. And he chose not to get that 10-year estimate. So it was Ryan’s choice not to have any independent estimate of the 10-year revenue effects.

And bear in mind that the Tax Policy Center critique was five months ago. If Ryan disagreed with the center’s estimates, he could have gone back to the JCT to get a different set of estimates. He never did.

I don’t think Ryan is a charlatan or a flim-flam artist. More to the point, I think he’s playing an important role, and one I’m happy to try and help him play: The worlds of liberals and conservatives are increasingly closed loops. Very few politicians from one side are willing to seriously engage with the other side, particularly on substance. Substance is scary. Substance is where you can be made to look bad. And substance has occasionally made Ryan look bad. But the willingness to engage has made him look good. It’s given some people the information they need to decide him a charlatan, and others the information they need to decide him a bright spot. It’s also given Ryan a much deeper understanding of liberal ideas than most conservative politicians have.

Long ago — basically when I started writing for the Times — I decided that I would judge the character of politicians by what they say about policy, not how they come across in person.


And so I don’t care how Paul Ryan comes across. I look at how he has gone about selling his ideas, and I see an unscrupulous flimflammer.

Think about that CBO report: getting the CBO to score only the spending cuts, not the tax proposals, then taking credit for being a big deficit reducer, is simply sleazy. Not acknowledging that the zero nominal growth assumption, not the entitlement changes, is driving that 2020 score is also sleazy. And the whole pose of stern deficit hawk, when you know that there are real questions about whether your plan actually increases the deficit, is phoniness of a high order.

At any rate, the answer to Paul Krugman’s question “Why didn’t he ask” is that “He did, and they said no.”

While I remain skeptical that anything like the Roadmap is politically possible, Paul Ryan is doing exactly what any sensible congressional sponsor with limited access to CBO time does; he’s saying “Well, when this is getting close to being an actual bill, we’ll work with the CBO and the JCT to tweak the tax rates in order to provide the amount of revenue we need.”  This is entirely normal, and was, incidentally, how the health care bill that Krugman so loves got its excellent CBO score; as I recall, the nascent plans were deficit busters and cost a lot more money.  That’s why the Tax Policy Center blog is defending Ryan.

Kevin Drum:

Well….OK. Up to a point. But look: Ryan surely has some responsibility to make the tax side of his plan as realistic as possible, especially given his chosen role as toughminded truthteller. And the Tax Policy Center made it pretty clear months ago that he wasn’t even close to his revenue goal. It’s easy to wave this off as requiring mere “tweaks” to the tax rates, but those tweaks are exactly the place where anyone would quite reasonably be most suspicious of Ryan’s willingness to play fair. After all, two or three points of GDP is a lot of money, and a tax skeptic like Ryan is going to have a very hard time making the changes necessary to come up with that kind of dough.

Ryan’s Roadmap is 70 pages long and obviously the result of a lot of work. So why not put in a little more work and bring the tax side of the plan into the realm of reason? Is it really that cynical to think it’s because he’s trying to get credit for being a deficit fighter without having to give up the dramatic tax cuts for the rich he so obviously has his heart set on?

Ted Gayer (Tax Policy Center blog):

Krugman alleges fraud because CBO did not score the revenue side of the Congressman’s plan. (This is correct as the Joint Committee on Taxation is responsible for providing the official revenue score of tax legislation.) Instead, CBO assumed that total federal tax revenues will be equal to “those under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario … until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.” Contrary to Krugman’s claims, this assumption is not

3-10-10bud-f1unjustified. Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” Since 1980 the federal tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.

Matthew Yglesias:

For Ryan’s plan to work, he needs 19 percent of GDP, which is what he claims to have. The Tax Policy Center pointed out months ago that he has 16, not 19. And Ryan hasn’t offered any new ideas. Instead, he’s still walking around DC dining out on his reputation for honesty and bold thinking. But to offer an honest plan to balance the budget your plan needs to balance the budget. I don’t really understand why this has become the subject of dispute. It seems to me that the 90 percent of members of congress who don’t claim to have a 70-year budget plan are the honest ones. For one thing, they’re not lying! For another thing, why do we even care about Paul Ryan’s plan to balance the budget in 2080?

Peter Suderman:

When TPC looked at Ryan’s plan, its analysis concluded that the Roadmap wouldn’t raise nearly the amount of revenue that Ryan estimated and, as a result, would actually raise the deficit.

But this was all hashed out months ago between Ryan and the TPC. As Ryan has noted, his plan’s revenue estimates were made in consultation with the Treasury Department in 2009. And they were based on CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario, which, at the time the revenue projections were made, expected somewhat higher growth than when TPC performed its estimates. That probably explains some of the difference. But, says Ryan, if TPC’s projections looked to be accurate, he’d be happy to adjust his plan in order to meet his revenue targets.

Matthew Yglesias and his “friend”:

TPC did analyze Sam’s marriage-specific claims about being a faithful husband and found they fell short of his 100 percent no-cheating pledge. For example, Sam has actually cheated on his wife an average of 1 day per week, which amounts to a fourteen percent shortfall compared to the claimed 100 percent faithfulness scenario. But that doesn’t mean that Sam’s claim of faithfulness is fraudulent. Instead, it shows that Sam’s vision of having sex with women who aren’t his wife needs to be adjusted in order to meet his stated goal of being a faithful husband. This indeed poses a challenge to Sam to make specific changes to his actions in order to match his claims of faithfulness. Sam has explicitly stated that he is willing to do so.

Again, I think that to just say “my political priority is to make the overall level of federal taxes as low as proves feasible” is a more honest posture than to release a fake balanced budget plan.

Paul Ryan via Tax Policy Center’s blog:

The tax reforms proposed and the rates specified were designed to maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP, based on consultation with the Treasury Department and tax experts.  If needed, adjustments can be easily made to the specified rates to hit the revenue targets and maximize economic growth.  While minor tweaks can be made, it is clear that we simply cannot chase our unsustainable growth in spending with ever-higher levels of taxes.  The purpose of the Roadmap is to get spending in line with revenue – not the other way around.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue with the Tax Policy Center and working with my colleagues in Congress to advance real solutions to our fiscal crisis.

Even if Ryan’s plan is worse than the status quo, not politically feasible, or both it seems that he’s honestly attempting to arrive at a policy solution to what he perceives as the nation’s economic and budgetary problems. Would I vote for his plan? No. Why can’t Krugman and others just stick to scrutinizing his economics, his rational, his ideology, and his policy’s effects? Do they need to torpedo his integrity as well? I just haven’t seen anything yet that appears deliberately dishonest from him – never mind by comparisons to typical pundits and politicians. It’s possible that my standards have been set so low due to the current mainstream of “conservatives.” For once we have some substance to criticize; do we really need to turn a policy discussion into an ad hominem brawl? It’s not that I don’t think Krugman, Yglesias, and others are resorting to ad hominem because they don’t have substantive critiques to make – it disappoints me because they have substantive critiques to make.

(image via Kevin Drum)

  1. August 9, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    My head is spinning. I suppose in the end I have to conclude that Ryan must be doing something right if he's pissing off the liberals.

  2. August 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Thanks for the roundup, Dan. While I agree that the ad hominem attacks aren't necessary, I don't think the attacks should discredit the possibility that Ryan is trying to pull a fast one for name recognition. Funny how much press he is getting. Could we be looking at a fresh face to take on Barry O in 2012?So far, I am inclined to agree with you here. I think any engagement is probably a good thing. The Republican Party as is needs to go the way of the buffalo. That is, if "going the way of the buffalo" means what I have always assumed it to mean. On the other hand, I'm still rooting for Palin to win the nom so B.O. can hand her lipstick wearin pitbull ass to her. Gotta love how reasonable she makes others look!

  3. August 9, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    A little quick research shows that Ryan ruled out a run for the White House in February. A Senate run could very well be in order.

  4. August 9, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    @ Zach, of course it is possible but he also doesn't seem like the celebrity type. He's not getting press for outlandish comments or staged press events but for setting himself apart by offering actual policy. It gets coverage because a Republican offering policy is unique. Please don't wish for something like that. Keep in mind presidential elections almost always correspond to the state of the economy. If Palin wins the nomination or is put on the ticket she could actually win if the economy isn't much better. She seems like a joke to us; she can win – she's a nightmare.

  5. August 10, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Yeah, I suppose bland is better in this case. I guess what we need is a Republican John Kerry to get the nomination. Someone who can't get anyone excited. Someone who seems like a good idea in the primaries and then can't rally the troops.Here's my question for you, Dan… What kind of Republican candidate are you rooting for? I happen to the think Palin would get her clock cleaned and that's why I said what I said. I think the center ultimately won't buy it. But maybe I'm wrong. You seem to be advocating a candidate that won't hurt too much should she or he win. That candidate sounds dangerous to me because the center might agree with you, say "they seem reasonabe enough", and cast their vote for the GOP.

  6. August 10, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    I haven't thought enough about that to give you a good answer, but allow me to be vague. I think presidential elections aren't decided as much on personality as people believe; therefore I hope the Republicans nominate someone as close to reasonable as possible. It won't happen but you're asking me what I'm rooting for. That way if the GOP wins, the country won't be in for a disaster. If you're asking me if I wish the GOP would nominate someone so repellent that they have no chance of being elected nationally and that President Obama would then coast to a 2nd term… well, maybe, but only if I could know that that scenario would lead to such utter defeat that a new Republican Party emerges completely divorced from what they are today. Maybe say in the style of David Cameron's Conservative Party in Britain. Of course, I don't think that is at all likely and I fear it may nudge the overton window closer to the reactionary right in acceptable American politics.

  7. August 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    Thanks for the link to overton window. Very convenient.It is obviously too early to talk about party restructuring in the wake of a defeat. But let's talk about it anyway! The midterms will give us a much better idea. If the Republicans don't pick up as many seats as expected and Obama gets through again, it could be sign of no-confidence in the Republican leadership and could really shake things up internally. If such were the case, I might favor the most likely win.

  8. August 11, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    Of course it's possible that the Republicans winning both Houses of Congress would help Obama for 2012 like it did Clinton. But I'm not one to favor such a scenario because I don't care about partisan makeup per se, I care about policy outcomes. Republicans to an even great extent than Democrats seem to fail to recognize that difference. Take the healthcare bill. Arguably (although I think it's generally a bad argument) the passage of healthcare such as it is will lead to Democratic loses and GOP gains. The GOP stayed together and "earned" political points for it – but they failed where it actually matters! Healthcare passed and they won't be able to overturn it. They could have compromised and made it closer to their vision, but they didn't for political reasons. They sacrificed their legislative goals for political ones. They've lost sight of why they want political power. I'm weary of ever doing the same.

  9. August 11, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    I think that the Democrats are in trouble for a couple other reasons besides healthcare. One, the stand they don't take on illegal immigration. Two, the stand they don't take against unions and the grotesque spending they incur on taxpayers. Three, the failure to stimulate the economy and job growth. Four, their failure to develop a sound foreign policy that addresses our major threats: Iran, North Korea, Russia, the Afghanistan War, and of course, the war on terror in which we have had numerous and successive episodes of attempted and actual events occur since Obama has taken office. This, combined with the liberals culture of political correctedness is such a turnoff for the centrists and independents, that its no wonder O's rating are so low. But go ahead, blame it all on George Bush. See if the voters will buy that argument.

  10. August 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    I'm not sure I blamed "it all on George Bush." Where did you get that from? Have you been reading my blog or just right wingers that tell you what "liberals" think? The only sensible point you make (probably for the wrong reasons) is that the electorate will hold Obama responsible for "the failure to stimulate the economy and job growth." I think this is certainly true – I think he's done most what he could given the nature of our political system. After all, the minority party is doing everything it can to stop the Democrats from acting. But plenty of blame falls on Obama and the Democrats as well. George Bush's name rarely comes up on this blog and even more rarely do I blame things on him. Try engaging with the actual arguments. I've dealt will similar fallacies before. Feel free to point to where my specific argument is lacking.

  11. August 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    Specifically, your argument is lacking in the assumption you make in claiming that I have accused YOU, specifically, of blaming George Bush. What I meant is that I challenge you to use that argument, as the Obama White House has been doing for the last several months. I believe that instead of spending all of their political capital on healthcare reform, the Dems should have been focusing on the economy and getting it right. Their stimulus packages were farceful and pork-laden and their financial regulatory reform bill was apallingly weak. In addition, the Dems have let foreign policy slide, have allowed homeland security to become a non-issue, and have polarized the country with illegal immigration reform–NOT in order to develop an adult conversation and do what's right for the country, BUT, to gain the hispanic vote. Obama is nothing what he claimed to be in campaigning. Instead he is a sell-out and has mastered the art of hiding "politics as usual" behind a charismatic facade.So instead of narrowing in with false indignation, why don't you try to address the points I have made. Or are you like all the other liberals I know who are political hacks that hide behind the elephant in the kitchen with their blaming fingers pointed at everyone else??

  12. August 11, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    While the dems are certainly lackluster, I really can't imagine the Republicans doing better. Certainly not with leadership like John Boehner. (if you haven't watched the interview Dan posted I would highly recommend it) The man is brutal. He makes Mitch McConnell look good.As for the hispanic vote… how dare politicians do what VOTERS want! isn't is so cheap when politicians do things the VOTERS want so they'll vote for them?also, the stand they don't take on unions? that's your number 2? while important, this isn't really a hot button topic like the economy as a whole or terrorism or the wars. isn't the elephant in the living room?

  13. August 12, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Wait… you're challenging me to use an argument that you think is bad? What a bizarre thing. Not that this matters but I don't think the Obama White House has been blaming everything on Bush, they're blaming some on the economy he inherited from the Bush administration (all of which wasn't his fault <- Look I can be fair!), and they're blaming a lot of Republican obstructionism. Both of those things are accurate criticisms. Mostly the problem is that political leaders just don't have as much control over the economy as you're implying. Here's Paul Seabright: "Politicians are in charge of the modern economy in much the same way as a sailor is in charge of a small boat in a storm. The consequences of their losing control completely may be catastrophic (as civil war and hyperinflation in parts of the former Soviet empire have recently reminded us), but even while they keep afloat, their influence over the course of events is tiny in comparison with that of the storm around them. We who are their passengers may focus our hopes and fears upon them, and express profound gratitude toward them if we reach harbor safely, but that is chiefly because it seems pointless to thank the storm."I'm also not clear on what you mean by spending political capital on health care reform. I hear that a lot but I'm not sure I buy the argument. Is it that politicians have some etherial currency and can only pass a finite number of things they want and then the opposition must obstruct everything else they try to do? You wanted him to focus solely on the economy? So if I'm reading you right, you wanted the Democrats to pass more stimulus like they wanted to do instead of pass healthcare (why these things are mutually exclusive I'm still unsure about). I'm not thrilled with the finreg bill either but our political system is set up in a way that compromises have to be made to pass any bill. The bill is surprisingly strong considering, I'd say. So am I also reading you right in that you wanted more regulation of the financial sector than was contained in the bill?

  14. August 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Part II:How has homeland security become a nonissue? Does that mean that for in order for something to be taken seriously it has to be talked about in the political world. I'm content with us just not being successfully attacked – i don't care so much about talk as i do results.The Dems polarized the country with immigration reform? That's odd because the spanish media is all upset with Obama for NOT trying to reform immigration. Correct me if I'm wrong but it's the Republicans trying to amend the constitution which they know they won't be successful doing. The only thing Obama has done on immigration is send the national guard to the border – the guy can't win with you can he? I wish he would reform immigration! He's also done a lot on what he campaigned on (of course not everything – he's not a dictator; he has to work with the legislature obviously): he's ramping down in Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan like he said, he passed healthcare like he said, he passed a stimulus bill like he said, re-regulated the financial sector like he said – those are the major things I can think of off the top of my head. Pretty substantial things I'd add, and very difficult. It fact this has been one of the most successful congresses (in terms of legislative accomplishments) in US history. Of course, I want him to do more as it appears you do too…I agree that foreign policy has slid as an issue too. But weren't you the one arguing that he should spend all his political capital on the economy; maybe he didn't want to spend it on foreign policy during bad economic times (i don't buy it either, but it seems like you'd buy that argument). It's not like he's completely ignored foreign policy though. See Iraq/afghan above. He's also signed a treaty with Russia on nukes, Iran is more isolated then it's ever been (not enough progress, I agree), Israel/Palestine he's tried a bit but Israel doesn't seem interested at all. I'll concede to you that FP hasn't been a priority for this administration and it should be pushed higher up the list, but to suggest that FP is somehow affecting the election is stretching it. It just doesn't seem to be in the data, enlighten me if I'm wrong on that. Have I addressed your specific points?

  15. August 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    @ Zach: 1-I did watch Boner on MTP this past Sunday. Basically he said "keep the tax breaks for the rich" and "have an 'adult conversation' with the rest of us on trimming our social security." This is where I part ways with the Republicans. 2- Not sure where you are coming from on the illegal immigration issue, but perhaps you can put your anger issues aside and tell us.3-Union overreach and the economy actually go hand in hand when it comes to spending. Have you seen the pension deficit for public workers lately?? Shouldn't Greece be a wake up call?

  16. August 12, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    @Dan:1- So you are basically saying not to blame the politicians (unless they are Republicans) on our economic woes??? Sorry, but, hello, doesn't Fannie/Freddie and the Senate Banking Committee come to mind–bot government/political failures that brought our country to its knees?? 2- The Obamocrats spent a lot of their political capital pushing through healthcare reform even when it was opposed by the majority of taxpayers. Instead, they should have been focusing on the economy and on jobs. Now its too little, too late. And if that wasn't bad enough, they push through a 26 billion dollar "Jobs Bill" where only 10 Billion went to simply preserving public sector jobs (not creating them) while the other 16 billion went to help states (aka: bailout) pay their medicaid bills! Wait till 2014 when we'll need state bail outs to help pay for expanded medicaid (obamacare)!3- Doing nothing about illegal immigration and bringing the Arizona law to court, is, in my eyes, not only polarizing (70% of taxpayers support the Arizona law-damn those taxpayers!) but also an affront against national security and a blow to the economy and job growth (for US citizens.) Amend Article 14, close the boarders, and enforce federal law (like Arizona is trying to do)–then I'll be happy with Mr. Obama.4- You are a sellout if you think healthcare reform and financial reform were substantive and good for our country. Big Pharm,the health insurance companies, and the financial sectors are laughing their way to the bank…on our backs. More regulation? Heck yeah. Greed and irresponsibility will kill this country otherwise. Screw Ayn Rand. Utopic conservatism is dead.5- Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran are more vigorous in their rhetoric and their posturing towards the US because they recognize our weakness-not only politically under a wet-behind-the-ear president but also economically. Mark my words, they will do to us what we did to Russia…cold war until we're broke. 5- Homeland Security: Radical Islamism is alive,well, and emboldened. Over the last 2 years there have been several, albeit little, attacks, and yet, what policy changes have we seen come from them to help prevent further ad more devastating attacks?? Sorry, but fighting a war in Afghanistan is a lot less important to me than protecting our borders and ramping up security in our own country.

  17. August 13, 2010 at 2:47 am

    I'd rather not get into a 12 pronged discussion on every issue under the sun. You're welcome to read my views on these various issues through the blog. But since you took the time to write all this out I'll offer you some response. First, I certainly never said anything about only blaming Republicans. I'm happy to blame the Democrats when they deserve it. They should have passed a bigger stimulus (they say it was the biggest they could get), Obama should have ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell by now, I'm starting to believe strongly that the war in Afghanistan should be dialed down not up, they should try to reform immigration, they blew it on the energy bill, Obama should be doing more to staff the Fed faster). I'm upset with them on all these issues and more – I can be disappointed but understand that they can only do so much at once and they have to work in the ridiculous system that requires 60 votes to get anything done. The Fannie/Freddie thing is wildly overblown. Here's my views on that (12) What's the deal with you using the phrase "taxpayers" is that code for something? I mean doesn't everyone pay some taxes? I think the jobs bill should have been bigger but the GOP and nervous Democrats won't allow it. I am happy for any jobs that are preserved however – that seems like a good thing to me, do you disagree? On immigration I can't disagree with you more but it's too large of a topic to discuss here. I am always amazed how often so-called conservatives are willing to change the constitution for ridiculous issues. You can find my views on healthcare reform throughout this blog. In all seriousness do you think the Republicans would have passed a FinReg bill with more regulation? On homeland security, we just don't hear about intelligence operations that much because it is done in secret mostly. Many terrorist attacks have been averted during the Bush and Obama years but you just don't hear about those that much because the media doesn't report the bombs that don't go off – only "man bites dog" as they say. Finally, would you mind using a name of some sort? Feel free to use a pseudonym if you prefer. It's just easier to know when I'm talking to the same person.

  18. August 13, 2010 at 7:54 am

    @ anonyou accused the dems of going after hispanic votes with immigration reform. fine. shouldn't political parties be doing things that voters are interested in (even if SOME of those voters are hispanic)? also, why do you consider immigration reform favored by the hispanic community and "doing what's right for the country" to be mutually exclusive? you set up this contrast as if it is self evident. do for unions… i'm not sure if you're saying that supporting labor unions will screw the dems because a) it is terrible for the economy and a bad economy is a sure way to get your electoral clock cleaned or b) support for labor unions is bad press in itself and will distance voters hostile to organized labor. i'm not making any claims about the effects of organized labor on the economy. i'm saying that this issue isn't the kind of democrat dooming heavy-hitter that you painted it to be. even if we assume that unions are lousy for growth and so on, find me the credible economist who points to american labor unions as a primary factor in the current economic crisis.but, if your assertion is that supporting unions is an unpopular position to take and the dems will pay a price for it, i think the claim is overblown. unless republicans can convince millions of people that democratic support for unions is to blame for our current situation, i don't buy the argument. who is even plugging this idea? the union issue is crushed by taxes and government spending in the national discourse.i'm not calling this a non-issue. i'm just saying it is a second-tier issue in terms of pertinence to the current economic situation and as a rallying point in itself.

  19. August 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    @ Zach: Tell me, where does the hispanic community stand in terms of immigration reform? Do they support the Arizona Law?? I don't think so. And yet, despite that the Arizona Law is the right thing to do, the Obalibs won't support it because they want the hispanic vote (they no longer have white America). Doesn't that bother you? Just a little?

  20. August 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    As to the public sector unions…no one says it better than my hero Pat Buchanan…

  21. August 14, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Hey anon! Since you still don't want to use a name, I'm just going to call you Pat, after your hero. So Pat…Who are the Obalibs? Are they voters? Or people in the Obama government? I think you mean the latter but I will address both anyway.I would be inclined to say that most voters opposed to the Arizona law would not cite the Hispanic vote as their motivation. They are not DNC strategists and are more concerned with things like racial profiling. While you may not agree, the civil rights concerns of others are worth respecting even if you feel that other priorities should take precedence..Of course the Democrats are aware of the Hispanic position on immigration reform and the Arizona law. No one is debating that. It does not, however, mean that the left has betrayed its values to get votes. Do you actually believe the they think that Arizona law was the "right thing to do"? While it might be a non-brainer for you, someone with another set of values or ideas might not arrive at the same conclusion. Saying something is "the right thing to do" as if the statement is self evident reflects a lack of intellectual rigour and really detracts from your argument and my desire to engage in further discussion.

  22. Pat
    August 14, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Zach, OK. If you don't think enforcing federal law and controlling criminal aliens is not the right thing to do, then I no longer desire to engage you in further discussion either. It is self evident to me that instead of offering solutions you would rather be an apologist for liberalism.

  1. September 10, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: