the real litmus test for Republican seriousness

"Serious" is a word that has been so denuded of content that I'm tempted to not even try and rehabilitate it. However, since we're debating this concept so fiercely regarding the Ryan Ripoff, I'd like to propose one litmus test for whether a Republican proposal represents toughness or seriousness, etc., in the way people mean it does: its orientation towards tax cuts on the wealthy. People keep saying, again and again, that this plan "touches the third rail" by proposing entitlement cuts. No it does not. The third rail for Republicans is raising taxes on the wealthy. And what does the Ryan budget do? It not only doesn't raise taxes on the rich, it cuts them. Among all the talk of shared sacrifice, with all the insistence that we've got to "get tough" and suffer together, on and on, it cuts taxes on the rich.

This is what has made so many conservative commentators so frustrating on this issue: they keep praising it for making touch choices when the choices are only tough on constituencies Republicans don't give a shit about, and for being tough in cutting things when what is being cut are things Republicans don't give a shit about. You want me to buy into claims of seriousness or toughness? Take on the actual power base of the Republican party and abandon the tax-cuts-for-the-rich orthodoxy. Then you can talk about toughness and seriousness. But, of course, you'll likely see no such proposal.

A Republican proposal that cuts taxes on the rich and cuts support for the poor is being called post partisan, gutsy, a new turn, revolutionary.... Bogus.