Big Idea Man Paul Ryan Brown-Bagging It

Media darling and Big Idea Man Rep. Paul Lyin' Ryan (Objectivist-WI) had a story to tell at CPAC today. It was about one of those poor kids Ryan and Republicans loathe care so much about and a brown bag (no, not one that's burning on the front porch).  See if you can spot where Big Idea Man's logic train goes off the tracks:

Ryan insisted that liberals were only offering people “a full stomach and an empty soul.” 

He then told a story of a “young boy from a very poor family” who received free lunches at school “from a government program.” 

“He didn’t want a free lunch,” Ryan insisted. “He wanted his own lunch, one in a brown paper bag, just like the other kids.” 

“He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown paper bag had someone who cared for him. This is what the left does not understand.”

Hmmm.  So, the kid's "very poor family" must not love him because they chose to take part in a school lunch program...  because they couldn't afford otherwise?  Ryan's solution:  let's take the kid's "free" lunch away!   Maybe discontinue mom or dad's unemployment benefits, too!  Then the kids will have an empty soul and an empty stomach!  Incentives!

Also:  Are there no workhouses?!

UPDATE:  Of course, it turns out Lyin' Ryan's story was bullshit.

Monday Morning Reads - Poverty of Ideas Edition

Contrary to what some Republican-wired Beltway f**knozzles =cough=Cillizza=cough= would have you believe, Republicans trying to play on the Democrats' anti-poverty turf, like Sen. Marco "Glug Glug" Rubio (R-Hooverville) is attempting,  just doesn't work.  First, let's hear from Ana Marie Cox on Glug Glug:

Senator Marco Rubio's office hyped his speech Wednesday as an "Address on the 50th Anniversary of the 'War on Poverty'", a rather grand billing given its familiar proposals. Rubio has slipped in and out of a few different presidential wrappers since he appeared in the US Capitol. He used to be "The Republicans' Obama". His proposals suggest that now he is the Latino Rick Santorum.

In 2012, Santorum outlined the exact same three-point anti-poverty plan: promote marriage, eliminate federal poverty programs in favor of block grants to states, and "something something America hope-dream-optimism something".

Paul Krugman has a more general point to make about the ideology that propels Republican attitudes toward income inequality and the poor:

Suddenly it’s O.K., even mandatory, for politicians with national ambitions to talk about helping the poor. This is easy for Democrats, who can go back to being the party of F.D.R. and L.B.J. It’s much more difficult for Republicans, who are having a hard time shaking their reputation for reverse Robin-Hoodism, for being the party that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

And the reason that reputation is so hard to shake is that it’s justified. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that right now Republicans are doing all they can to hurt the poor, and they would have inflicted vast additional harm if they had won the 2012 election. Moreover, G.O.P. harshness toward the less fortunate isn’t just a matter of spite (although that’s part of it); it’s deeply rooted in the party’s ideology, which is why recent speeches by leading Republicans declaring that they do too care about the poor have been almost completely devoid of policy specifics.

Give both pieces a read today, please.

Today's Reads - Poverty of the Soul Dept.

From today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, frequent blind squirrel Dana Milbank is on a roll, discussing the Republican "War on the War on Poverty."  Could he finally be focusing his snark on the right targets?  Permit a lengthy excerpt:

The chairman of the RSC’s “anti-poverty initiative” is one Rep. Steve Southerland, a funeral director from the Florida Panhandle who is best known for heading an effort to dismantle the food-stamp program.

Southerland led five other white men in suits onto the stage Wednesday and declared the War on Poverty a failure. “It’s clear we’re now engaged in a battle of attrition that has left more Americans in poverty than at any other point in our nation’s history,” he said. There are 46 million in poverty, he added, “despite more than $15 trillion to fight this War on Poverty. Clearly the big government ideas of the past need to be improved and aren’t working to the extent that they should. We have a moral obligation to break the mold.”

CNN’s Dana Bash asked the mold-breaker what he thought of the White House’s claim that the poverty rate fell from 25.8 percent in 1967 to 16 percent in 2012. “The percentage of people in poverty today as compared to 50 years ago as a percentage is less,” he acknowledged. “But I also want to make sure it is very clear that there are more Americans living in poverty.”

Well, yes, 10 million more Americans are in poverty now than there were in 1963 — but the overall population has increased by 125 million. If you include all of the financial assistance from anti-poverty programs, the poverty rate dips to below 8 percent today. And people who are poor suffer less because they receive health care through Medicaid and nutrition through food stamps.

Finally seeing through the bullshit, are we?  Well a more reliably perceptive observer, Harold Meyerson, also writes today about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and the continuing efforts by Republicans to deny access to health insurance (and therefore affordable health care) to millions of Americans.  Please permit another lengthy excerpt:

Which is to say, the ACA is working as planned, perhaps a little better, in the states where governors and legislatures chose to implement it, such as California and New York. It is barely working in those states where governors and legislators have refused to implement it, such as Texas. Although the number of states declining any participation probably will diminish over time, as the tea party’s grip on the Republican Party wanes or as older white conservative voters die off, the resulting red-blue division between the states probably will be a feature of the nation’s political economy for some time.

Consider the implications: A larger share of Californians will be able to afford regular medical check-ups than Texans. A smaller share of Californians is likely to be bankrupted by the expense of major medical treatment than Texans. When the law’s tax penalties take effect, a smaller share of Californians will be subject to the penalties that come with the individual mandates than will Texans. In the coming years, a smaller share of California hospitals will face financial risk for indigent care than hospitals in Texas, where fewer of the sick and poor will be covered by Medicaid.

The conservative argument that the ACA is a disaster is true only when it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: Most of the negative consequences that right-wingers have warned against have occurred only in those places where right-wingers have subverted implementation of the law.

 When you have a poverty of ideas combined with a poverty of the soul, this is how you operate.