Getty Images
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) seems quite fond of the phrase "bipartisan consensus." It's ironic, under the circumstances, but even putting that aside, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, Ryan keeps using those words, but I do not think they mean what he thinks they mean.
Here's Ryan yesterday talking about his plan to end Medicare's guaranteed benefit: "I believe there is a bipartisan consensus emerging on going this direction."
Last week, he told the New York Times there's "a bipartisan consensus on most elements of what needs to be done" on the debt. A few days prior, Ryan told Fox News, "There's a bipartisan consensus on tax reform." A few days before that, Ryan told ABC "there is an emerging Democrat-Republican bipartisan consensus" on closing tax loopholes. A day before that, he told CNN his Medicare reforms "reflect the emerging bipartisan consensus."
In March, Ryan told CBS there's "a bipartisan consensus" to get rid of tax shelters. In February, he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that "a bipartisan consensus" exists on tax policy.
You get the idea.
I'm sure it's the kind of language that makes unwitting media figures swoon -- "Paul Ryan can't be a radical; he keeps talking about his love for bipartisan consensus!" -- but let's unwrap this a bit, because I think it's important to understand how wrong the Ayn Rand acolyte really is.
First, when Ryan's far-right budget plan reached the House floor, it garnered exactly zero Democratic votes, and generated opposition from 10 House Republicans. This isn't an agenda that enjoys "bipartisan consensus"; it's the exact opposite.
Second, there's ample polling data to suggest there is a "bipartisan consensus" among Americans on all kinds of compelling ideas: tax fairness for the wealthy, increased investments in domestic infrastructure, health care reforms that protect those with pre-existing conditions, keeping Medicare and Social Security intact, etc. Paul Ryan opposes all of these measures, regardless of their overwhelming support from the electorate.
Third, there's arguably a legitimate "bipartisan consensus" on some of these issues in a broad sense -- both sides agree that Medicare faces serious fiscal challenges and tax reform is doable with the elimination of various loopholes and tax expenditures -- but Ryan's hard-line privatization agenda enjoys almost no Democratic support, and tax reform is impossible so long as Ryan touts closing loopholes without actually going to the trouble of saying which ones he'd scrap.
And finally, "bipartisan consensus" just isn't what it used to be. It wasn't too long ago that Democrats and Republicans agreed on a health care mandate, the basic structure of an immigration reform package, a cap-and-trade plan, contraception access, Planned Parenthood funding, routine increases to the debt ceiling, reducing nuclear stockpiles, and reducing the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and modest tax increases. That consensus disappeared with the radicalization of the Republican Party.
I'm delighted Paul Ryan seems interested in ideas with bipartisan support. I'd be even happier if he meant it.
Leave a Comment:
There's a bi-partisan consensus for a lot of things in this country... just not in Congress.
One definition of consensus is that we agree that we agree that something should be done and agreeing what should be done is not necessary to have consensus!
It is bipartisan consensus if:
bipartisan means that Ryan's right arm and far right arm agree.
The main consensus is that government is of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. One party is just more blatant about it.
Maybe he thinks if he says it enough it'll come true or we will think it is true. Wrong!! What do these people go to a school to learn this kind of deception? If they have to resort to lieing and throwing out catch phrases something is wrong. They are rich and they intend to stay rich and their job in PUBLIC office is to stay rich and help their rich friends get richer so they can have rich partys and horses to dress up. They like pretending to be Thurston Howell and Kings and Queens it's fun....We want to play.
Bipartisan to Ryan means that both the Koch brothers and Fox news support his budget.
In Ryans world "bi-partisan consensus" means that he and a few of the Blue Dog (aka Republican lite) democrats agree that there is a problem and it should be fixed. It's the "plan" that he's come up with that isn't supported that's the part he forgot about.
"...there is an emerging Democrat-Republican bipartisan consensus..."
When a Republican uses the word "Democrat" where the word "Democratic" should be used, it says to me they are not ready to stop playing games.
Guess he never went to a Quaker meeting.
If Romney chooses Ryan for VP,Pres.Obama will have two pathological liars to deal with.
Reminds me of Eddie Munster.
I thinks politics would be a fun sport to watch if politicians were fitted with a shocking devise that gave them a painful "zap" every time they lied to the public.
And a "strong majority" of "elected" representatives doesn't mean what President Obama thinks it means either.
Red Herring. C'mon Rob you're better than this.
Are you saying President Obama didn't try to make the case for Supreme Court confirmation of the constitutionality of his health care program by saying it passed by a "strong majority?"
And how is that different by pretending there is a consensus? Answer: it is not, both are playing politics.
No Rob. You aren't addressing the issue but are instead trying to scapegoat the conversation onto Obama. It's a lazy and intellectually dishonest way of debating. You're then attempting to draw a false equivalency based off your own fallacy. Stop doing it.
So, what is the issue? From this article it seems that Ryan doesn't understand the term "bipartisan consensus." And you think all politicians use "bipartisan" correctly, it's just Ryan who, according to the author, stretches the meaning?
Did you know the Democrat Senator Wyden's office says that 12 Democrat senators have expressed interest in Ryan's reforms? Is his office lying?
I would say that 12 Democrats qualify as "bipartisan consensus emerging." It may not happen but if 12 have expressed interest in possible support, one could make the case that consensus was moving in that direction.
Tell me, where do you think Ryan is wrong with the statement that seems to have sparked this article, namely, ""I believe there is a bipartisan consensus emerging on going this direction."
Lastly, I have no problem directly addressing the issue, sometimes I think it is helpful to put the issue in a different context than just the oft one sided view.
C'mon! Ryan saying "bipartisan" is not about his cluelessness. It's about his Frank Lutz-like cynicism. He knows his Medicare destruction plans aren't bipartisan. What he's doing is planting a lie in his listeners so when there's a push-back by Democrats against his Medicare privatization, those who've been brainwashed will wonder why those Democrats are being so partisan. And that's what will happen. Democrats will be accused of partisanship while Ryan and his merry safety net destroyers will appear the reasonable actors. Democrats wonder why they lose when they simply refuse to push back against nonsense like this.
And this is why they win. They're playing to win and Democrats are simply cowards to fight fire with fire.
Republicans need to be called flat-out liars. Over and over and over and ...
I HAVE TO WRITE THIS SOMEWHERE (YES, ALL IN CAPS, AS IN SCREAMING)
Paul Ryan was on morning Joe yesterday and I simply had to stop watching after 5 mins. Once again this morning Scarborough was defending the Bush legacy during the segment with Carl Bernstein. WHY IS JOE SCARBOROUGH ON MSNBC? Please, somebody explain.... citing Mr Brzezinsky "this guy's level of superficiality is simply unbearable" and, in my humble opinion, reflects the lack of serious thinking of you, Rachel, C Hayes, Melissa, et al.
No research, no insight, no analysis... only ad nauseam repetition of his ideology based talking points – all while mommy Mika complains about the boys's behavior and attire on screen. How about Lawrence and Karen Finney replacing these two clowns. Just a suggestion and sorry for the rant.
Greeting from a Mexico fan
Rolf
I think Joe is a normal Republican like it used to be before they started getting drunk on Tea. Remember when they compromised?
There is a war on women. We all have to stand up for our daughters. Once a freedom is eroded we will never get it back. I am assuming that the right to vote and working out side the home will follow. My freshman female Senator Ayotte from NH has me feeling stabbed in the back.
Hopefully it won't be long before everything is back to normal or even better. I think the female Republicans are probably crying every night. Maybe they should talk about it with other women.
You know what doesn't need bipartisan consensus? Facts
And the fact is that our entitlements are in need of reform.
The 2011 OASIDI Trustees Report indicates that by 2036 the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted and only be sufficient to support 77% of scheduled benefits (http://eng.am/sBU5SU). And, Medicare's trust fund is currently forecasted to run dry in 2024, and would only pay 90% of benefits starting in 2024, then dropping to 75% in 2045 (http://usat.ly/m1jBSl).
There is a non partisan consensus that the Republican Party has been taken over by mental patients and criminals, how do we sort them out.