Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
The 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee announced Monday that he will not run for the White House. Ryan’s news comes just days after Mitt Romney, his running mate, made clear he may run again.
“I have decided that I am not going to run for president in 2016,” Ryan told NBC News on Monday.
“It is amazing the amount of encouragement I have gotten from people – from friends and supporters – but I feel like I am in a position to make a big difference where I am and I want to do that,” Ryan said.
In what can only be described as controlled rage, GOP Rep. from Wisconsin, and former Vice Presidential Candidate, Paul Ryan let IRS Commissioner John Koskinen have it with both barrels.
“I’m sitting here, listening to this testimony, I don’t believe it,” Ryan said. “That’s your problem. Nobody believes you,” he said flatly to Koskinen. “The Internal Revenue Service comes to us a couple years ago and misleads us and tells us no targeting is occurring. Then it said it was a few rogue agents in Cincinnati. Then it said it was also on progressives. All of those things have been proven untrue.”
“You are the Internal Revenue Service,” he said. “You can reach into the lives of hard-working taxpayers and with a phone call, an e-mail or a letter you can turn their lives upside down. You ask taxpayers to hand onto seven years of their personal tax information in case they are ever audited and you can’t keep six months worth of employee e-mails? And now that we are seeing this investigation, you don’t have the e-mails, hard drives crashed. You learned about this months ago. You just told us, and we had to ask you on Monday.”
When Koskinen tried to respond and defend his own personal record, Ryan let him have it, again.
Koskinen said it was the first time in his career someone did not believe him.
“I don’t believe you,” Ryan said again.
The best the Democrats could muster was a lame defense of the witnesses in general, who testify.
The senior Democrat on the committee, Rep. Sander Levin of Mich., chided his colleagues that, “Witnesses deserve some respect.”
Once again the elites in Washington have proven that the founding concept of a “government of the people, by the people and for the people” is nothing more than a myth. Senator Mitch McConnell sold out the Tea Party Republicans for a large barrel of pork for his state of Kentucky. Not only did the Republican leader in the Senate give Obama everything they wanted on the Continuing Resolution and the Debt Ceiling, he gave Obama the tool to be able the raise the debt ceiling in the future without having to worry about what the Republicans want in exchange. Breitbart has the story:
The plan includes a proposal offered by McConnell in the 2011 debt ceiling crisis that allows Congress to disapprove of the debt ceiling increase, which means lawmakers will formally vote on whether to reject a debt ceiling increase until Feb. 7. Obama can veto that legislation if it passes. If Congress fails as expected to gather a two-thirds majority to override the veto, the debt ceiling would be raised.
With this very cute sleight of hand, the two legislative bodies of Congress gave away more of their constitutional powers to the president. Let’s look at an example to see how this works. Let’s say that President Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion. But John Boehner and the Republicans in the House only are only willing to raise the debt ceiling by $700 billion. Normally this would lead to an impasse and a potential government shut down if the parties can come to some kind agreement after some give and take by both sides. But that is not going to happen anymore. Instead, would say to his Republican colleagues in the House that the President is asking to raise the debt ceiling by a $1 trillion. We are going to vote on a bill Not To Raise The Debt Ceiling by $1 trillion. And, the Republican controlled House passes the bill Not To Raise the debt Ceiling by $1 trillion and they send it to the Senate. The Senate then will pretend to cave-in to the House Republicans and they too will pass the bill Not To Raise the debt ceiling $1 trillion and they will send the bill to President Obama for his signature. Obama, of course will veto the bill immediately. Then, because there are not enough votes (2/3 of both houses) to over-ride the President’s veto, the debt ceiling will be raised by $1 trillion just like the President and the Democrats wanted in the first place. And, the slimy Republicans will be able to say that they voted to Not Raise the debt ceiling by that much but they couldn’t over come the President’s veto.
Sadly, a vast majority of the American electorate will not see anything wrong with what these criminals have done to undermine our constitution again. Congress and especially the Republicans have agreed to make themselves even less relevant than they already were.
Can somebody tell me what good it does us conservatives to have a Republican majority in the House? It probably wouldn’t make much difference if Republicans controlled both houses and the presidency. We have a one party system and they are not going to let go of their power. We are a minority in America and we had better get use to it. Now we can sit back and watch Paul Ryan sell us out on amnesty.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Folks, I understand that not everyone can be intelligent. But, stupidity seems to have reached epidemic proportions in the world today and America has not escaped this tragedy. This seems to be particularly true for those on the left side of the political spectrum
Like me, most of you have probably seen some videos put up by conservatives that have gone viral. One was of a woman who was more than a little emotional because she had gotten a Obama phone. The other video I have in mind was where a sneaky conservative was interviewing Obama supporters at some rally. When asked if they agreed with Obama’s decision to name Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate. They said they thought that was a good decision. The follow-up question was if they thought Obama picked Paul Ryan because Ryan was black or because Ryan was a very capable man? Some responded it was because Ryan was a good man and others responded that the decision was probably based on a little bit of both of the suggested reasons. It scares me that people that stupid have the right to vote.
So, we have universal suffrage in America and we must then accept that stupid people can and will vote. There are other people on the Left for whom it is difficult to know if they are stupid or they are evil. A case in point is that bearded wonder, the “crapweasel” who is a Nobel laureate in economics and is allowed to write Op-Ed articles for the New York Times, Paul Krugman. Now, it would be difficult to claim that Dr. Krugman is stupid. So, is he evil or has his ideology been so ingrained in him that logic can not penetrate the firewall that it has constructed in his brain? In his recent Op-Ed piece he wrote, he explains that Republicans are convinced that this election is going to be a referendum on Obama’s handling of the economy and that because the economic indicators are not good, republicans are sure that Romney will win. Of course, Krugman dismisses this Republican view-point. He agrees that this election will be a referendum; but one of a different sort.
Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?
Krugman is confident, as he says the polls show, that the voters will vote to continue the gravy train (my words not Krugman’s). He goes on to lament that Obama in his second term will continue to be obstructed by Republicans in Congress and, therefore, will not be able to deliver all that the voters want.
This is what is worrying me, dear friends. It is bad enough that as the video mentioned earlier demonstrate, there are a lot of stupid people within the American electorate; but on top of that we have people who know better, like Paul Krugman, who are saying “it’s okay “stupid people” vote for Obama because you deserve all the free stuff you can get.”
Here is a question for you. If we do manage to elect Mitt Romney in November, is it possible to do something about our education system and educate away some of the stupidity that exist? I am not so sure. There is an old refrain that says: if you take a man who is an idiot and give him the very best education (say like at Columbia and Harvard) that what you end-up with is an educated idiot.
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Think Progress (More correctly: Think Regress) seems to be a tad bit upset that Paul Ryan discussed the death panels, also known as IPAB, with a group of seniors. I guess we can’t be letting granny know that it’s the Democrats that plan on offing them, can we?
Paul Ryan likened a mechanism to control health care spending to “death panels,” during a town hall at the University of Central Florida in Orlando on Saturday.
After listening to Ryan repeatedly call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, an elderly man asked the Republican vice presidential nominee about “the death panels.” Rather than dissuading the man from what PolitiFact named 2009?s Lie of the Year, Ryan laughed and responded, “that’s not the word I’d choose to use to describe it. It’s actually called….the Independent Payment Advisory Board”:
QUESTION: We love you Paul. But I’m getting long in years. Will you address the death panels that we’re going to have?
RYAN: The death panels, well! That’s not the word I’d choose to use to describe it. It’s actually called. It’s actually called, so in Medicare, what I refer to as this board of 15 bureaucrats. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It sounds fairly innocuous.
Then, they played the video…
And, for their explanation, and transparently poor excuse for a rebuttal…
The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but despite Ryan’s claims, it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). The IPAB will consist of 15 members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and will include a broad spectrum of experts and consumer advocates, like physicians, employers, economists, representatives of consumers and the elderly. In fact, relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.
Notice, that they don’t mention what will happen when providers are paid less. They’ll provide less care! I covered this extensively in the past. Here are some highlights…
In discussing the “death panels,” we have to take yet another look at Ezekiel Emanuel. Besides being the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm, Dr. Emanuel is a prominent if medical ethicist that has, shall we say, some rather interesting ideas about medical treatment. Here are some quotes from Dr. Emanuel:
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.
So, the government will have the authority to deny treatment for those individuals that they deem unfit for living. What criteria would be use? Do you get to appeal? Do you have any choice? Under a government controlled plan, I would venture to guess no.
“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”
Note that the decision has been made based on the amount on money the government has spent “developing” a human. He is essentially reducing the value of human life to the amount of resources that society has expended upon the said human. Now, the left can decry the 2% profit margin of the insurance companies; yet engage in far more sinister statistical calculations for who gets care and who gets to die?
“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”
This is phenomenal wordsmithing. He denies in the first part of the sentence, and endorses in the second. Sir, just saying that the grass isn’t green does not make it orange!
“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”
So, we have the IPAB, which stands for Independent Payment Advisory Board. From what Orszag is saying; that it will cut costs by not being “based on quantity,” I think we can safely assume that this is a rationing body.
Now, if this is a rationing body, and they are going to cut costs by not treating things, might this also be the “death panel?” Both Sunstein and Emanuel (EZKILL, not Rahm), have both tagged end of life care as something to be limited. IPAB would seem to be a great way to accomplish just that. No, you won’t have to stand before them and justify your life, but they might just arbitrarily decide to not pay for something that keeps you alive. Considering that this already happens in the UK with cancer drugs, and 20,000 Brits with cancer are killed by the NHS each year, are we seeing a pattern here?
But that wasn’t the end of it. Not content with simply having Emanuel and his ideas, he did a recess appointment for Donald Berwick, who now is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s but one quote from him.
The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.
The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied:“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
So, can we safely assume that there is a pattern here? While the “progressives” in power say that rationing is not part of their plans, they certainly seem to like appointing people that do.
Mitt Romney could have named Bugs Bunny as his running mate and the puerile and increasingly hysterical Left would have labeled the rabbit as an extreme right-wing ideologue whose idea of governance is to murder the elderly, bitch-slap the poor, defenestrate the infirm, and happily castrate a few stray squirrels as he hops his way to a coney Klan meeting. But to a deranged pack of ‘progressives’ that critiques a Marxist like Barack Obama as “deeply conservative”, the choice of Paul Ryan, a man who believes that government should live within its means, is akin to the dawning of the Apocalypse. Romney with Ryan has suddenly become a formidable opponent, and you can hear the Lefties shrieking from coast to coast:
The liberal assault on Paul Ryan has commenced. But the first round of attacks can’t provide much solace to Democrats, who assume they will be able to demonize the Republican vice presidential candidate with ease. The first 48 hours of Ryan’s candidacy has already seen a deluge of abuse from the mainstream media editorial pages and columnists … Liberals like Robert Reich, who took to the Huffington Post to howl that Ryan’s ideas are “social Darwinism” or formerTimes editor Bill Keller who damned the prospective next GOP administration as a compendium of every wicked conservative idea ever conceived, clearly believe all they need to do is to just call Ryan and to a lesser extent Romney, every name they can think of.
Barry himself, now publicly displaying more scarlet than a sun-baked Swede, leaves most of the mud-slinging to his seizured minions, touting instead his ” … new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared”, and even promoting the nationalization of American industry:
“I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back. Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”
Something is roaring all right, but it’s the almost 13 million citizens out of work because of the Obamaconomy, not Barry’s beleaguered Government Motors. That so-called ‘bail-out’ stiffed taxpayers for more than $25 billion, much of which disappeared into the long coat pockets of his UAW union comrades, while the value of the freshly nationalized GM stock receded faster than Joe Biden’s hairline. And this is what the Big Red One hopes to do to the rest of America’s industry?
The Obama Administration redistributed $26.5 more to the union than UAW would have received legally in the bankruptcy proceedings had the rule of law and contract been followed.
Obama’s nightmarish “vision” has been around since 1848, when Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto, and wherever the Reds have ruled, it’s never prosperity that’s shared, only poverty and pain, distributed at the point of a gun. After 3 1/2 years, Obama’s own team of Reds and Pinks is finding its thinly veiled socialism an increasingly hard sell. Half-filled venues and lines of supporters shorter than those at Chick-Fil-A on Appreciation Day tell the sorry tale. Worries over empty seats during Barry’s re-coronation gala plague apprehensive Democrats who know that perception usually trumps reality — unless the perception is the reality. Barry’s coattails are now so frayed that even the incorrigible harridan San Fran Nan is urging her fellow Jackasses to stay at home and watch re-runs of The West Wing:
” … I’m not encouraging members to go to the convention no matter what the situation was, because they can be home.”
Still, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Jackasses are desperate, opines Greg Lewis:
Democrats’ scorched-earth, take-no-prisoners campaign is not a sign they’re desperate; it’s who they are. They’re the most subversive, dirtiest enemy America has, and they must be stopped.
But it’s not who they are that counts — it’s who we are. Do Americans really want to allow a cabal of dishonorable left-wing radicals another four years in which to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and transform the country into something unrecognizable except to octogenarian former members of the Comintern? Do we even know the difference anymore between our enemies and our friends? We’ll soon see.
I knew from the moment that Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate the left was going to paint Ryan as an extremist who wants to destroy Medicare and push grandma off the cliff. In a “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for” moment DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempts to use a Jedi mind trick on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in the below clip. Fortunately Mr. Blitzer was not weak minded in this instance and was able to resist her feeble attempts to pull the wool over his eyes. Take a look at the below clip.
How pathetic was that? I mean I actually started to feel bad for her. She reached a point where she was just shooting from the hip and making it up as she went. This is how the left reacts when they’re caught in a lie, deflect and lie some more about the lie. It’s like catching a small child with their hands in the cookie jar. When you ask the child what they are doing with their hands in the cookie jar the child digs a deeper hole by saying they’re making sure all the cookies are there. The left reacts the same way. They get caught in a lie then they dig a deeper hole by lying about the lie. Instead of addressing the real issue of the sustainability of Medicare, they live in the now and make empty promises to an ignorant electorate all too willing to lap it up because they’re not ready to deal with the truth. This is how the left wins elections; lies and misinformation. They conveniently leave out of the Medicare conversation how Obamacare has already gutted Medicare in the tune of $564 billion in the next 10 years. They won’t even acknowledge that $564 billion pesky little fact about Obamacare. Instead they target senior citizens with scare tactics by telling them that the Ryan plan to reform Medicare will push them off the cliff. It’s time for some grownup talk about Medicare and in the below clip that’s exactly what Paul Ryan does. Check it out.
Folks we have a responsibility as informed citizens to expose the misinformation the left is spreading about Mr. Ryan’s position on Medicare. Many groups predict that Medicare will go bankrupt by 2024. That’s only 12 short years away. We must tackle this issue sooner than later and Mr. Ryan gets this. He is trying to have an adult conversation about the topic and the left doesn’t want to hear it. Instead the have chosen to lie about his position and use the lie to plant the seeds of doubt in the electorate. That’s the conversation the left wants to have about Medicare. We deserve better. So what’s more radical; to save Medicare by reforming it or to continue down its unsustainable path that leads to bankruptcy and limited options for seniors? You know the answer.
Fox News broke with a story at just after 2:00 a.m. EST that GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has made his choice for the Veepstakes:
“A Republican with knowledge of the development confirmed the selection to the AP, hours ahead of an official announcement during a campaign stop Saturday morning in Norfolk, Va. Romney will then launch his “The Romney Plan For A Stronger Middle Class” bus tour.
The selection comes roughly two weeks before the start of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, and gives Romney plenty of space to rally the party behind his pick before the official nomination.”
He will officially announce it Saturday morning in Norfolk, VA at an event on the USS Wisconsin at around 8:45 a.m. EST. It is not known at this time if Congressman Ryan will accept the nomination or decline it. He did decline to run for President this cycle, so only time will tell.
FWIW I think Paul Ryan is a great choice, it will allow Romney to have Ryan tackle the budget process while he focuses on job-creation for the remainder of the campaign.
The Democrats are screaming that Paul Ryan’s plan to save Medicare will gut Medicare and kill grandma and grandpa. The problem with that argument is that the Democrats have already dealt a serious blow to Medicare Advantage when they rammed Obamacare through Congress back in March 2010. The American Healthcare Education Coalition (AHEC) is a national non-profit, public-interest organization that pushes for free market solutions to our healthcare issues. They analyzed the impact Obamacare would have on Medicare Advantage and below is an except from their study.
The cuts to Medicare Advantage begin right away, with payment rates frozen in 2011 at their 2010 levels. The reimbursement rates for doctors continue to decline; between 2012 and 2017, the law phases in a new formula for setting maximum MA payments by region. This new formula will dramatically lower MA payments in every region of the country. The new law also makes large cuts to the payment rates for hospitals and other medical providers in the government-managed fee-forservice Medicare program, and a portion of these cuts automatically gets passed through to MA plans as well in the form of even lower maximum rates.
Facing these steep cuts, insurance companies that offer MA plans will be forced to make adjustments in their coverage, raise their premiums, increase their deductibles and co-payments, or eliminate many benefits. In response to ObamaCare’s new rules, some plans have already exited the market altogether, taking away many of seniors’ options for Medicare Advantage plans.
Furthermore, the Democrats consistently stressed before the passage of the law that anyone who liked his or her health insurance plan would be able to keep it under the new law. For millions of seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage plans, which rate highly for satisfaction among seniors, this promise now rings hollow.
Before ObamaCare passed, the chief actuary for Medicare expected MA enrollment to increase to about 14.8 million in 2017. Now, however, after passage, the chief actuary for Medicare predicts MA enrollment to fall to 7.4 million in 2017.
It now appears that the President’s administration is trying to prop up Medicare Advantage until after the election by devising a way to divert $8 billion from the Medicare slush fund to postpone the cuts for 2012 and temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds. This smoke and mirrors tactic is designed to hide the fact that Obamacare severely guts Medicare Advantage, thus creating the illusion for senior citizens in an election year that the popular insurance plan is safe under Obamacare. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can read the entire article here>>
This is what this administration is about, smoke and mirrors. They can’t run on their record and they definitely can’t run on Obamacare. And they can’t afford losing the senior vote in what will be a very close election. So what do they do? They pull the wool over the eyes of our seniors. How pathetic is that. I hope someone in congress investigates this sham.
The United States has a brief time remaining when we can solve our budgetary crisis without drastic measures. Soon, our debt to GDP ratio will inhibit economic growth, the sheer magnitude of the debt will overwhelm efforts to get it under control, and rising interest rates will crush all other budgetary considerations. For now, we have an opportunity to solve the fiscal crisis without, for example, having to cutSocial Security and Medicare benefits to existing seniors. This is what theHouse Republican budget seeks to do. But that window is rapidly closing.
You can read the rest of the post if you’d like, but let’s pause here and really think about the various points that Representative Ryan is making here. There is extensive research and data out there to back almost all of these points up, but I want to touch on a couple points-
Time is powerful. Small changes to entitlement programs implemented right now will be able to add up over long periods of time to change the trajectory of entitlement programs that are projected at some point in the future to go bankrupt. The sooner we implement these changes, the less drastic and radical these changes will be; but if we delay in implementing changes to make these programs solvent, there is the potential that at some point in the future we will not have programs that are 95% of what they are today but rather will have programs that are 0% of what they are today. Based on estimates and projections by everyone, changes to these entitlement programs need to be made- but only Representative Ryan has put together a comprehensive plan to do so that makes those tough changes.
Debt to GDP, rising debt, and rising interest rates will progressively become a greater and greater burden on our nation and will increasingly make it more difficult to implement reforms, pay down debts, shore up entitlement programs, and maintain the quality of life that Americans expect. Every year that we run a deficit makes the situation worse- already we spent more on interest payments on our debt that we do on a range of programs from NASA to museums- and every year we delay in bringing the budget under control only makes it harder to bring the budget under control the next year. President Obama’s budget proposals in 2012, 2011, and 2010 all failed to balance the budget and ran deficits and added to the national debt, making it progressively and increasingly harder to balance the budget in future years.
2012 is a critical election. With a Republican Congress with solid majorities in both the House and Senate and a Republican President, our nation will have a fleeting opportunity to pass reforms to shore up the deficit and keep Social Security and Medicare for the future. This will mean difficult decisions today- programs will have to be cut back to the bloated levels they were under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush- but those tough decisions today will mean that citizens of the future might have a slight chance at getting some sort of Social Security or Medicare programs and of not being destroyed under a mountain of debt. But if President Obama wins or the Democrats hold the Senate (or even lose the Senate by a vote or two like I project) or somehow the Democrats take back the House, based on past experience (Democrat control of the Senate since 2007, Democrat control of the House from 2007 to 2011, Democrat control of the Presidency since 2009) we can expect no entitlement reform, budgets that continue to pile up debt, and four more years of lost time to deal with the issues. Our nation can’t afford 4 more years- by then interest rates on the debt will be higher and eat up a higher proportion of our budget, inflation will have set in from the expansion of the money supply, entitlement programs will be drained of more and more cash, etc.
This sucks, and it makes me very angry that my parents and grandparents are going to be dropping this on my generation and my children’s generation. Every single dollar that is spent in debt is a dollar that me and my children owe and will have to pay interest on, undermining our national security and quality of living for services and support which we did not receive nor will we expect to receive in the future. This intergenerational theft that is occurring today is immoral and wrong, and any politician from any party who votes for a dime more in debt is party to this (and this includes the Republicans in the past who voted for Bush/Republican deficit-financed budgets from 2001-2007).
The one hope- and it is a slim one- is that in 2012 we can as a nation do the right thing and vote Republican (or Democrat when and if there are any moderate Democrats who also agree with these views and help Paul Ryan pass his bipartisan and moderate budget).
Ryan’s proposal is full of hope and change– hope that we as a nation can still put in place the reforms needed to strengthen programs like Social Security and Medicare and our military, and change in how our nation goes about funding its business. No more can our nation continue to operate in the old Jimmy Carter/Barack Obamaway of raising taxes, talking down business, inflating the money supply, devaluing the currency, making cuts to our military, and refusing to even discuss reforming collapsing entitlement programs.
The moral and responsible thing to do to make sure that future grandparents have in place an income and healthcare safety net is to begin the conversation of taxing and spending policy with Paul Ryan’s budget. To do any less is to close ones eyes, deny reality, and doom to failure the great progress that our nation has made these years in helping the poor, the needy, the weak, and the aged.
As a Republican, I’m glad to see that people like Paul Ryan in the party, fighting for liberty, the rule of law, and conservative economic principles.
Paul Ryan’s budget was passed in the House, but Majority Leader, Harry Reid made damned sure that it didn’t pass his Senate because HE has a budget of his own that he wants..huh?
He doesn’t have a budget to submit, but President Obama’s budget got shot down 97-0??! Wow, what a uniter in chief we have; but has anyone pulled him aside and explained that bipartisan efforts work best when it gets your legislation passed, not when it gets your legislation thrown on the floor and walked all over.
Oh. Well then he obviously is just going to use continuing resolutions to pass last year’s budg….what say?
He didn’t pass one last year, either?
Oh. Well, come on I mean they were busy last year, so I am sure they are just going to use the budget they passed from the year before tha….what??
It’s been over three years since, under Reid’s leadership in the Senate that a budget was passed?
Did Reid used to work an Enron, or Solyndra? I mean that is bordering on criminal, at least it would be in the private sector.
Well, here is a video by one of my political activists heroes, Bill Whittle. Please enjoy.
Folks, we had better start listening to Paul Ryan, because we’re heading down the same road as Greece and very soon our debt is going to spiral out of control. It will reach a tipping point and we won’t be able to do anything to stop it. It’s an election year and both sides appear to be playing politics with our future. They don’t want to deal with this debt crisis because it’s the silly season when politicians paint a picture of rainbows and unicorns for the electorate. They want us feeling good about ourselves and buying into the empty promises they’re trying to sell us. Paul Ryan is one of the few elected official in Washington these days who is daring to stand on principles and tell the American people what the score really is in regards to our debt crisis. That is what leadership is about folks. Leadership is doing the right thing no matter what the cost. The first clip is from a few weeks ago.
You can hear in his voice how frustrated and disgusted he is with his colleagues for not passing a budget, because like he said you don’t even have a starting point to address this problem without a budget. It starts and ends with a budget. Instead we have continuing spending resolutions that continue to increase our debt at record levels. This past Sunday on ABC’s This Week he discussed the budget, Medicare, Social Security, and partisan politics. Below is a clip from his interview.
While Representative Ryan offers up ideas and solutions to help restore America, his partisan minded colleagues play politics with our future and our children’s future. He is speaking up and warning us of what America faces if we don’t get a handle on our spending problems. He too is running for reelection this November, and yet he is not afraid to tell us the cold hard truth. This is the kind of leadership that is needed to turn this thing around and unfortunately it’s lacking in D.C. these days. Congressman Ryan cares about America and he sees what America will look like if we don’t correct course. I applaud Congressman Ryan for his efforts and his willingness to stand up for each of us. This is what real leadership looks like.
The claim that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would end Medicare is the “lie of the year,” according to the fact-checking website Politifact.
According to Politifact’s analysis, saying the Ryan plan “ends Medicare” overlooks the fact that its changes would not affect people 55 and older. Politifact also said Medicare would remain in existence, but in a different form — which Ryan’s critics say is the same thing as ending Medicare.
The regressives, however, have not taken this well. Here is a sampling…
To be honest, Politifact got it wrong last year, when they said that the Death Panels were the lie of the year, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. However, it’s interesting to see the regressive reation to being called out on their lies.
Come to think of it, none of the regressive sources decided to mention that ObamaCare drains $500,000,000,000 from Medicare, did they?
I know I keep hammering away on this Financial Reform bill that Congress passed on May 20, 2010, but I feel compelled to keep trying to drive the point home as to why this bill is so bad for our country, our people, and our free market system. I found an outstanding article written by Representative Paul Ryan that I wanted to share with you all. It is one of the best articles I have seen to date on this subject. It’s pretty long but it’s a must read.
Democrats are nervous. Really nervous. They would like nothing more than to turn the page on their health care takeover, taxpayer-funded bailouts, reckless spending, and exploding debt. In the face of fierce political headwinds, the party running Washington is making an effort to advance its ideology at all costs.
Financial regulatory reform, the thinking goes, provides Democrats an issue where the politics finally align with the Left’s policy preferences. Republicans, they believe, can be walked into a convenient political trap by opposing what Democrats call “Wall Street reform.” President Obama has mastered the art of bank populism, premised on class warfare, by tapping into powerful emotions of envy, anger, and fear.
From an ideological perspective, big government can combine with big business to advance a more progressivist society. For self-described “progressives,” the agenda is straightforward: expand government; co-opt big business; direct the capital markets from Washington to pursue “social justice.” Think Fannie and Freddie by much higher orders of magnitude.
Over the past decade, the thinking has been much less clear for conservatives. Being “pro-market” has been fundamentally confused with “pro-business.” Conservatives who came to Congress to defend and promote free enterprise have often been led to believe that pathway lies in bolstering established firms as they navigate the maze of government regulations and taxes. These instincts are correct, but the implementation is often flawed. All too often, the results of these efforts have been to exacerbate crony capitalism – erecting barriers to entry against potential competitors to firms that are currently on top.
For their part, companies seeking such protection have a right to pursue their narrow self-interest; but when these actions involve reducing open competition and transparency for short term gain, they do so to the detriment of the very free enterprise system that made their success possible.
Republicans, who profess their zeal for democratic capitalism as the greatest source of human flourishing, all too often have aided the “kings of industry” in pulling the drawbridge up after they’ve taken the castle. Conservatives must recover the fundamentals of what is needed to defend the free enterprise system. We can begin by rejecting the current financial regulatory overhaul moving through Congress, and by offering alternatives that apply the essential principles that form a true free enterprise system.
The financial regulatory overhaul is not reform. Its fundamental architecture expands and centralizes power in Washington, doubling down on the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It is based on a vision that government can foresee future crises and avert them, despite the fact that an army of regulators never saw the most recent crisis coming.
The complex array of new councils, agencies, and bureaucracies creates endless channels for crony capitalists to penetrate. A financial system that once thrived on entrepreneurial risk and low barriers to entry for investment will now deny admittance to everyone except those sophisticated enough, connected enough, and flush enough with campaign contributions to do business with government and pay the price of entry.
Institutions deemed “too-small-to-succeed” would not be afforded the explicit protections given to the largest firms, resulting in higher borrowing costs and higher hurdles to succeed relative to their well-connected competitors. Unprecedented authority over the operations of financial institutions would be vested in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC would be authorized to seize risky financial institutions if a council of regulators, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, believes a company is in danger of default and poses systemic risk. Once a company has been seized, the FDIC oversees its entire resolution process, including restructuring the order of creditor obligations – serving as creditor, manager, and referee.
Conflicts of interest will inevitably arise on how to treat creditors of failed firms, and increasingly, what were once economic decisions will now be political decisions. Dispelling the market discipline of our profit¬-and¬-loss¬ free enterprise system, collusion between government bureaucrats and their private-sector counterparts will determine winners and losers.
Despite roughly 1400 pages of text in the legislation, the destructive role of the government-backed housing giants remains a glaring omission. Enabled by Congress, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wrought havoc on the housing market and remain on operational life support as taxpayers subsidize their failure. After their leading role in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, they’ve received $145 billion in taxpayer dollars, with no limit to additional funding. Fannie and Freddie demonstrate just how big federally blessed and guaranteed businesses can grow – and just how hard they can fall.
A number of key corrections to mitigate crony capitalism’s destruction have been rejected throughout the Senate debate. Senator John McCain, for example, offered an amendment to end the privatized profit/socialized loss model of Fannie and Freddie, phasing out costly taxpayer subsidies. House Republicans have also put forth serious reforms for Fannie and Freddie, as part of our larger financial reform alternative – despite being shut out of the process in House.
There is no shortage of innovative alternatives to the heavy-handed government approach making its way through Congress – alternatives that make the distinction between “pro-market” and “pro-business.” Although a bold departure from the status quo, a proposal put forth by Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff calls for banks to stick to their fundamental purpose of financial intermediation rather than taking on the excessive risks with no strings attached that have lead to taxpayer-funded bailouts. Real reform must decouple America’s economic well-being from the fate of a select few financial firms.
Another approach, one that works within the current financial framework, has been offered by Oliver Hart of Harvard University and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago. Their proposal addresses the “too-big-to-fail” question through the use of a market-based trigger that tells firms when to beef up capital. This approach is aimed to better balance “the need to curb reckless risk-taking…while making sure not to unduly constrain economic activity, investment and growth.”
Failure to reform the system poses clear risks, but the frenzied push to score a legislative victory prior to the November midterms with a deeply flawed bill poses greater risk. A good-faith reform effort should not continue indefinitely, but the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, for example, has been essentially cast aside by the very same Congress that tasked the commission to investigate the crisis and issue its report later this year. The Democratic leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue have opted to rush a bill into law, putting ideological goals and campaign strategy ahead of underlying catalysts for real reform.
The federal government has a critical role in helping ensure financial markets are fair and transparent, and holding accountable those that violate the rules. Reform should aim to restore the principles that have made credit available to American families and entrepreneurs and our capital markets the envy of the world: freedom to participate, an unbreakable link between performance and reward, continued attachment to risk, and a sense of responsibility that ensures those who seek to reap the gains also bear the full risks of losses.
For millions of American families, the real pain from the past financial crisis can still be felt. The financial services sector needs reform – yet the overhaul before Congress exacerbates the worst aspects of today’s system. Washington is attempting to solve every problem with greater government control, and higher spending, taxes, and record levels of debt – breathing new life into crony capitalism across our economy.
You see folks this is why this is a very big deal. It threatens the very foundation of our free market system. It may never be the same after this. What’s worse is this bill hasn’t gotten much press, so people are not focused on it. Even many of the conservative talk radio shows have steered away from it. The fact is their original intent for creating this bill was to regulate the derivatives market. You remember the same derivatives market that “supposedly” ignited the financial meltdown that led to all the bailouts. This was why we needed reform so this could never happen again. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann stated in a Newsmax article, “The bill fails to do the one thing it must do — regulate derivatives and make them transparent. Senator Chris Dodd, D-Conn., bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years!”
They deleted regulatory provision, the whole reason why they said we needed this type of reform! Well if the bill is not meeting its original intent, then why did Congress pass it? Can anyone please answer that question? I urge everyone that reads this post to get the information out to Tea Party groups, friends, family, neighbors, or anyone that will listen. This bill is headed to the House for reconciliation, so it will have to be voted on at least two more times; once by the House then again by the Senate after reconciliation. Contact the four so-called Republican Senators that voted for this crap. They are Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of R-Maine, Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Ask them how they can vote for such an anti-free market bill that doesn’t even address the root causes of the financial disaster we all experienced last year.
Then contact your representative and ask why regulation of the derivative market was dropped. And if so, why did this not kill the bill? This is serious business that will have a huge impact on our free market system and your bank account for years to come.
We need to act on this and demand answers. We need to hold their feet to the fire and let them know that we know what they are trying to get away with.