Paul Ryan gave a speech on poverty and economic mobility.

No, that’s not the beginning of one of those a-man-walks-into-a-bar jokes. It actually happened.

Ryan delivered the speech Wednesday in Cleveland. “In this war on poverty,” he said, “poverty is winning.” What he didn’t say is that he and his budget have taken sides in that war — and not on the side of the poor.

This is just the latest of Mitt Romney’s home-stretch attempts to kick up the dust of confusion, soften harsh rhetoric and policies, and slip into the White House.

Photo

But there’s a problem: Ryan’s budget was actually printed — on paper, at that. It was passed by the House in March. It can be examined and evaluated.

At one point on Wednesday, Ryan said: “Where government is entrusted with providing a safety net, Mitt Romney and I have our own vision for how to keep it strong.”

Well, let’s see what the paper trail says.

According to a March Report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan would get at least 62 percent of its $5.3 trillion in nondefense budget cuts over ten years (relative to a continuation of current policies) from programs that serve people of limited means. This stands a core principle of President Obama’s fiscal commission on its head and violates basic principles of fairness.

At another point on Wednesday, he said: “The short of it is that there has to be a balance – allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do.”

It is funny that you should mention these “private groups,” Mr. Ryan.

In a series of letters early this year the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly rebuked the Ryan budget.

One letter read:

Congress faces a difficult task to balance needs and resources and allocate burdens and sacrifices. Just solutions, however, must require shared sacrifice by all, including raising adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other spending, and fairly addressing the long-term costs of health insurance and retirement programs. The House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria. We join other Christian leaders in insisting a “circle of protection” be drawn around essential programs that serve poor and vulnerable people.

Another letter read:

At a time of great competition for agricultural resources and budgetary constraints, the needs of those who are hungry, poor and vulnerable should come before assistance to those who are relatively well off and powerful. With other Christian leaders, we urge the committee to draw a “circle of protection” around resources that serve those in greatest need and to put their needs first even though they do not have powerful advocates or great influence.

Yet another read:

The moral measure of this budget debate is not which party wins or which powerful interests prevail, but rather how those who are jobless, hungry, homeless or poor are treated. Their voices are too often missing in these debates, but they have the most compelling moral claim on our consciences and our common resources.

Ryan, of course, is Catholic.

Now, back to Ryan’s speech. He said: “The truth is, Mitt and I believe in true compassion and upward mobility – and we are offering a vision based on real reforms for lifting people out of poverty.”

However, Ryan’s 2010 budget (promulgated when the Democrats still controlled the House) proposed eliminating the capital gains tax. According to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report, the main drivers of income inequality in this country from 1996 to 2006 were the growth of capital gains and dividends:

Capital gains and dividends were a larger share of total income in 2006 than in 1996 (especially for high-income taxpayers) and were more unequally distributed in 2006 than in 1996. Changes in capital gains and dividends were the largest contributor to the increase in the overall income inequality.

In subsequent budgets, including the most recent one that passed the House, Ryan dropped the language about eliminating the capital gains tax, but it’s not clear what his plans are. In a June interview, he was asked directly if he would “lower the write-offs for 401(k)s or capital gains and dividends?”

His answer was evasive and left room for interpretation: “I don’t know the answer to your question. What I do know is, we think the smart thing to do – a lot of other countries have done this – is to lower our tax rates.”

Ryan also said on Wednesday:

Mitt Romney and I want to apply this idea to other anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps. The federal government would continue to provide the resources, but we would remove endless federal mandates and restrictions that hamper state efforts to make these programs more effective.

Very interesting, but is it accurate?

ThinkProgress points out that Ryan’s budget would gut “healthcare for low-income families”:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Ryan’s plan to block grant Medicaid — which provides health care to low-income individuals — would “involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care.” A new study by the Urban Institute finds that Ryan’s plan would reduce Medicaid enrollment by a whopping 50 percent.

So Ryan — the man whose budget would wreak havoc on the poor — steps to a podium and pretends to be a defender of the poor.

Sometimes you just run out of words for galling.