Both Paul Krugman and James Fallows have a great pieces today ruthlessly challenging the gushy Village consensus about Paul Ryan's "brio" and "seriousness." You should read both if you haven't already.
But I haven't heard anything much about this:
While House Republicans have already embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) ambitious vision for the 2012 budget, the Republican Study Committee is offering a starkly different alternative from the official party version.
RSC Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and his allies Thursday listed some talking points in support of their proposal: It would balance the budget in 2020. It would make huge cuts in domestic spending, both in discretionary and mandatory programs. And it would make bold moves to delay coverage for Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries, including an extension of the eligibility age for persons who are now 59 years old.
The conservative alternative makes huge spending cuts by cutting many “mandatory” spending programs to their 2007 “pre-stimulus” level, which also happens to be the final budget before Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006 election. Among those programs are food stamps, supplemental security income and family support programs that were created by welfare reform. The RSC plan also would make big cuts in farm spending and student assistance and would increase fees for mortgage loans.
You may recall Chris Hayes' bon mot from the other day:
Can't wait for someone to propose eating the poor and infirm so we can all then agree the Ryan plan is reasonable.
At the rate they're going the Catfood Commission is going to be called a socialist plot. (Read Susie to see why that's not all that far off.)