<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=84de2ffb/98f1fc94&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787510c_nyt5&ad=BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">September 2, 2012</div>
<h1>Rosie Ruiz Republicans</h1>
<h6 class="byline">By
<span><span>PAUL KRUGMAN</span></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Remember Rosie Ruiz? In 1980 she was the first woman to cross the finish
line at the Boston Marathon — except it turned out that she hadn’t
actually run most of the race, that she sneaked onto the course around a
mile from the end. Ever since, she has symbolized a particular kind of
fraud, in which people claim credit for achieving things they have not,
in fact, achieved. </p>
<p>
And these days Paul Ryan is the Rosie Ruiz of American politics. </p>
<p>
This would have been an apt comparison even before the curious story of
Mr. Ryan’s own marathon came to light. Still, that’s quite a story, so
let’s talk about it first. </p>
<p>
It started when Hugh Hewitt, a right-wing talk-radio host, interviewed
Mr. Ryan. In that interview, the vice-presidential candidate boasted
about his fitness, declaring that he had once run a marathon in less
than three hours. </p>
<p>
This claim piqued the interest of Runner’s World magazine, which noted
that marathon times are recorded — and that it was unable to find any
evidence of Mr. Ryan’s accomplishment. It eventually transpired that Mr.
Ryan had indeed once run a marathon, but that his time was actually
more than four hours. </p>
<p>
In a statement issued by a spokesman, Mr. Ryan tried to laugh the whole
thing off as a simple error. But serious runners find that implausible:
the difference between sub-three and over-four is the difference between
extraordinary and perfectly ordinary, and it’s not something a runner
could get wrong, unless he’s a fabulist who imagines his own reality.
And does suggesting that Mr. Ryan is delusional rather than dishonest
actually make the situation any better? </p>
<p>
Which brings us back to the real issues of this presidential campaign. </p>
<p>
Obviously nobody cares how fast Mr. Ryan can run, and even his strange
marathon misstatement wouldn’t be worth talking about in isolation. What
makes this incident so striking is, instead, the way it resonates with
the essential Rosie-Ruizness of Mr. Ryan’s whole political persona,
which is built around big boasts about accomplishments he hasn’t
accomplished. </p>
<p>
For Mr. Ryan, as you may recall, has positioned himself as an icon of
truth-telling and fiscal responsibility, while offering policy proposals
that are neither honest nor responsible. He calls for huge tax cuts,
while proposing specific spending cuts that, while inflicting immense
hardship on our most vulnerable citizens, would fall far short of making
up for the revenue loss. His claims to reduce the deficit therefore
rely on assertions that he would make up for the lost revenue by closing
loopholes that he refuses to specify, and achieve further huge spending
cuts in ways that he also refuses to specify. </p>
<p>
But didn’t the Congressional Budget Office evaluate Mr. Ryan’s plan and
conclude that it would indeed reduce the deficit? I’m glad you asked
that. You see, the budget office didn’t actually evaluate his plan,
because there weren’t enough details. Instead, it let Mr. Ryan specify
paths for future spending and revenue, while noting — in what sounds to
me like a hint of snark — that “No proposals were specified that would
generate that path.” </p>
<p>
So Mr. Ryan basically told the budget office to assume that his plan
would slash the deficit, then claimed the resulting report as
vindication of his deficit-slashing claims. Sorry, but that’s the policy
equivalent of sneaking into a marathon near the finish line, then
claiming victory. </p>
<p>
Still, Mitt Romney, not Mr. Ryan, is the presidential candidate,
although that’s sometimes hard to remember. So how does Romney/Ryan
differ from Ryan alone? It’s worse. Like the Ryan plan, the Romney plan
offers huge tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy, while pledging
to offset these cuts by closing unspecified loopholes; but Mr. Romney
adds to the implausibility by also demanding higher defense spending and
eliminating the Medicare cost savings contained in Obamacare.
Realistically, the Romney plan would explode the deficit, not reduce it.
</p>
<p>
Yet Mr. Romney boasts about his fiscal responsibility; in Tampa he
accused President Obama of hurting the economy with big deficits (while
also declaring that Mr. Obama was destroying jobs by cutting military
spending — go figure), then declared that “We will cut the deficit and
put America on track to a balanced budget.” Yep, he’s another Rosie Ruiz
Republican. </p>
<p>
So what is this election about? To be sure, it’s about different visions
of society — about Medicare versus Vouchercare, about preserving the
safety net versus destroying it. But it’s also a test of how far
politicians can bend the truth. This is surely the first time one of our
major parties has run a campaign so completely fraudulent, making
claims so at odds with the reality of its policy proposals. But if the
Romney/Ryan ticket wins, it won’t be the last. </p>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>