The question for policymakers is not how best to redistribute a shrinking economic pie. The focus ought to be on increasing living standards, expanding economic opportunity, and promoting upward mobility for all.
This displays rules of propaganda two and three, discrediting the opposition by a parody and manipulating the consensus values of the target audience. No one in American politics is discussing redistributing a shrinking economic pie, there are disagreements over the causes of growth and over how to share the burden of expenses that have been democratically agreed upon. This statement radically manipulates the opposition's position into something distinctly unAmerican and portrays them as opposed to the universal values of better living standards, opportunity, and upward mobility while portraying Ryan and the Budget Committee as its champions. My disagreement with Ryan is that I think his proposals degrade all three of these, not that I believe there is a shrinking economic pie to cut up. It is also true that expenses simply are a pie that needs to be distributed, our debt isn't going to go away by wishing it would so that particular pie does need to be shared out, confusing this with wanting to share out the economic pie, rather than the debt pie, is just transparently manipulative.
My second issue with the first page is this:
Conventional wisdom on government’s role in inequality often has it backwards: tax reforms have resulted in a more progressive federal income tax; government transfer payments have become less progressive (due in large part to growing entitlement payments to wealthier seniors).Explaining what is manipulative about this will take some length, I'll get into it in more detail in the relevant sections of the report. It will become apparent as we proceed that much of the increased progressivity of the tax code is due to shifting anti-poverty measures from other departments to the IRS, this has also made transfers less progressive as the more progressive transfers are the ones that have been shifted to the IRS. I don't really understand why shifting government assistance from Health and Human Services to the IRS should be understood as having changed the overall progressivity of American transfer programs, it is simply pedantic hair splitting meant to score political points.