Paul Ryan’s Wine Passes Sniff Test. Susan Feinberg’s Behavior Smells Like Rotting Monkfish à la Soubise.

In the grand scheme of things, the Paul Ryan wine fiasco means nothing. For those unfamiliar with the story, Ryan and a few economists were dining in an upscale restaurant. His guests ordered a $350 bottle of wine. And then they ordered another. Susan Feinberg of Rutgers University, also an economist, was celebrating her birthday. She became so (weirdly) incensed at the choice of beverages that she had to give Ryan “a piece of her mind.”

She approached the table and asked Ryan “how he could live with himself” sipping expensive wine while advocating for cuts to programs for seniors and the poor. Some verbal jousting between Feinberg and the other two men ensued. One of the two men said he had ordered the wine, was drinking it and paying for it. In hearing how much the wine cost, Ryan said only: “Is that how much it was?”

The clash became especially heated when Feinberg asked the men if they were lobbyists.

“F— her,” one of them replied and stood up in a menacing way, according to Feinberg’s account. Feinberg said her husband then “puffed out his chest” in response before the manager and a waiter came over and Feinberg decided she had said her piece and it was time to leave.

It’s bad enough living in D.C. with people asking you for change when you get off at every Metro. Now a Congressman can’t even go out to eat with a few economists without a liberal professor going Code Pink Crazy on him? Paul Ryan should have been the one confronting Rutgers’ Susan Feinberg, asking how she could clog her pie hole with Steak Tartare Atilla and Duck Confit Façon Tarbais while liberals are out there trying to convince the American people Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid don’t need the kind of fundamental changes he’s advocating for. How can Susan Feinberg “live with herself” when Keynesian economics has a track record of abysmal failure? Liberalism’s deepest footprints leave nothing but crime and misery and hopelessness where Feinbergian good intentions once once stood.

Paul Ryan’s friends happen to like a good glass of wine with their meal. In Susan Feinberg’s mind, perhaps it would have been better if the Congressman was home taking pictures of his crotch and posting them on Twitter Weiner-style since it’s free! (although, how do you calculate the cost of moral decay by Anthony Weiner advocates like Janeane Garofalo?)

Next time I see Susan Feinberg in a restaurant perhaps I’ll confront her over unconstitutional health care mandates. Maybe her husband will “puff out” his chest and I’ll recoil in fear (because who knows how much testosterone surges through the veins of liberals dining at Bistro Bis. It has to be off the charts).

In short: Susan Feinberg’s self-righteous pomp is a joke. When’s the last time she confronted a Congressional tax cheat? Never. Put in elitist DC Beltway terms an ivory tower foodie can understand: The smell of Selles-sur-Chere gone wrong wafts downward from the moral pedestal she stands on. It’s time to step off and back away.

Now excuse me while I turn my attention to a serious politician.

Update: Allahpundit over at hotair covers Susan Feinberg’s sudden silence. I wonder why…

Next: Left to Use Gay Rights Logic On Fiscal Crisis.

Jason Alexander believes New York’s gay marriage law was a great step for “humanity.” Next up for liberals: applying gay rights logic to the laws of supply and demand.

Hollywood was certainly happy with New York State’s passing of a gay marriage bill. In fact, liberals everywhere were so psyched by the development that some have already surmised that the same logic can be carried over into the budgetary realm, where the law of supply and demand and its conservative disciples have thwarted “progress” for centuries! Faced with skyrocketing national debt and no way to pay for it, New York’s gay marriage victory has instilled hope that the world will finally “advance mankind” when it comes to knuckle-dragging creditors (as Seinfeld’s Jason Alexander might put it).

Wiping tears from her eyes in Greenwich Village, a young Bongo Studies Major at New York University puts it best:

I’ve never been attracted to men. I’ve never had a desire to be with one. Now society has progressed to the point where a majority of New Yorkers understand. The conventional wisdom and the Laws of Nature strongly suggest that a union between men and women should have a special institution set aside for them—but that’s not true. Likewise, certain mathematical properties suggest that algebraic equations only work if strict adherence to the rules of dead white men are followed. Well, I’ve never had a desire to live within my means. I’ve never had a desire to balance my budget. And millions of others around the globe haven’t either! Perhaps those old dead men…were wrong. Did you ever think of that?

Paul Ryan may have a budget plan, but it appears as though his hard data may be up against a new foe: “progress.” For years conservatives have based public policy on the idea that prices mean something, that they’re not just arbitrarily decided upon by “greedy” businessmen (playing poker with liberals like Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in a smoke-and-cocaine-filled hooker closet). Now, if the left gains traction, the right will have to convince millions of Americans that unprecedented debt isn’t something to be embraced. What’s an easier sell: fiscal conservatism or Repudiation Pride parades? Long story short: free market conservatives have their work cut out for them.

Editor’s Note: This post was written in a Safe House for Satire.