Why Bother, Congressman Ryan?

Everyone's been giving Paul Ryan shit about his "I don't have time to explain the math" line on FOX, and rightly so. But here's what really sticks with me from that interview. Ryan claims that his tax cuts will be "revenue neutral." If that's true (spoiler alert: it isn't) then why bother?

Why bother cutting tax rates and closing loopholes if the end result is the same?
Seems like the process goes something like this:

So last year, your tax rate was x amount of dollars. 

Congratulations, you're getting a 20% tax cut!

Whoopee!

But we're getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction

 and whatever other deductions you used to take.

Um, okay? So how much am I going to owe this year?

 

Hmm, let's see. . . . carry the one. . . divide by . . . aha!

 This year your tax bill will be x-amount of daollars!

But that's exactly the same!

 It's pronounced "revenue neutral."

 

Maybe Ryan can explain this better:

How much would it cost?" Wallace wondered. "The cut in tax rates."

"It's revenue neutral... Lower all Americans' tax rates by 20 percent," Ryan replied.
"Right, how much will it cost?" Wallace pressed. "It's not revenue neutral unless you take away the deductions."
"I won't get into a baseline argument with you because that's what a lot of this is about," Ryan explained. "We're saying, limited deductions so you can lower tax rates for everybody. 

 But let me say it this way, you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we're saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates."

So, besides the fact that he's completely full of shit, that there is no way that a 20% across-the-board tax cut can be revenue neutral, especially if you're preserving deductions  for home purchases, charitable contributions, health care, etc, even if that were somehow magically true by the power of wishing really hard, what's the point? If the revenue is going to be the same, if, in other words, taxpayers are going to be paying the same, then why bother? And I haven't heard anyone in the media asking that question, so maybe it's just me that doesn't get it. But I kinda doubt it.

Magical Thinking

Sarah Palin's attorney, Thomas Van Flein just spoke with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. Mitchell asked him if Palin was upset that critics called her speech "rambling." " Well, I don't think she's upset. What I think is, she sees it as the standard criticism that she receives....She's actually very articulate."

Why do these people think that they can make something be true just by saying it? Saying that Sarah Palin is articulate is like saying that she's male, or black, or not a vapid, publicity-hungry baby factory.

Why do you think that that's the "standard criticism?" Do you think that people listen to her prattle and think "wow, she's really articulate. I guess I'll say the exact opposite when asked for comment?" Take a look at this:

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, and oil and gas. It's energy!
God gave us energy.

(source: http://gov.state.ak.us/)

Does that sound like something an articulate woman would say? It's incoherent. There's barely a complete sentence in there. And this is from the transcript on the Alaska State Government website. So is this:

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

See, anyone with a basic grasp of English syntax can see that here she is claiming to have put government into private hands.

Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we all could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities right – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

That's pretty much gibberish. And by the way, Ms Palin may be the only one who can "learn so much" from an infant.

. . . we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up,

That's an ironic reference, since the theme of the speech was "I quit!"

So, articulate? Not so much. Simply saying that she is doesn't change anything. This is a sort of magical thinking, believing that saying something as if it were true somehow makes it more true. It's how you get people saying things like "we'll be greeted as liberators" and believing it. Or "Sarah Palin is qualified to be president."