Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Paul Ryan for President

I don't know that there is any politician in Washington that has a better grasp of the facts and  what is going on in this country than Paul Ryan. It's a real shame he declined entreaties to run for President, because we really need someone like him, someone who appreciates why government must be scaled back, not only because it is spending and redistributing way too much, but also because it is encroaching on our precious liberties as individuals. This is not just partisan politics—I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and don't fit the traditional mold of either Republicans or Democrats—it's about what's best for freedom, free markets, and prosperity for all. I don't know of any other way that is more conducive to a strong and prosperous economy, one that provides the highest standard of living to the most people.

There are way too many politicians of both parties that are guilty of pursuing policies that threaten our future, and I'm compelled to make that case on this blog, since I cherish free markets and individual liberty. I'm also compelled to criticize Obama's attempts to divide this country into have and have-nots, which I view as nothing but a transparent attempt to divide and conquer in the name of Big Government, which in the end is the biggest threat we face today.

Following are some excerpts from Ryan's opening statement today, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee introducing testimony from Acting OMB Director Jeff Zients regarding President Obama's recent budget proposal. To my knowledge Ryan makes not a single error or misrepresentation of the facts. We have a serious problem with deficit spending and runaway entitlement programs that can't be fixed by higher taxes, and Obama, the Senate Democrats and too many Republicans are studiously avoiding any meaningful solutions.

I’d like to thank our witness today, Mr. Zients. Unfortunately, you are in the position of having to defend a budget that essentially dodges the most difficult challenges our country faces.
The New York Times has reported that this budget is, quote, “more a platform for the president’s re-election campaign than a legislative proposal.” After a careful review, it’s hard to disagree. The Associated Press has reported – accurately in my view – that this budget, quote, “[takes] a pass on reining in government growth.” Instead, it leaves the drivers of our debt – namely, the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending – quote, “largely unchecked.” It takes a pass on real reform, even though the looming bankruptcy of these programs threatens to end the guarantee of security they provide for our nation’s seniors.
Jack Lew, your former boss, claimed that the reason Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over 1,000 days is that the Republicans have threatened to filibuster. This is simply false. As Mr. Lew surely knows, budget resolutions cannot be filibustered. They can be passed with a simple majority.
The real source of dysfunction in the Senate comes from members of the President’s own party, who have been unwilling – for almost three years now – to go on record in support of his budgets, or to pass budgets of their own.
More to the point, it wasn’t so long ago that the President’s party held total control of the White House and both branches of Congress – during which time his agenda was enacted in near totality:
* massive new spending and taxes
* the creation of new, open-ended entitlements
* a regulatory onslaught that hurt the economy
* and trillions of dollars in new debt.
We were – and we remain – eager to work with the President to stop spending money we don’t have… to reform government programs that aren’t delivering on their promises… and to enact pro-growth policies that raise revenue by getting our economy moving again.
Yet, instead of working with us, the President has demonized our ideas to save and strengthen health and retirement security programs. And he continues to insist on taking more money from hardworking Americans – not to reduce the debt, but to fuel his ever-higher spending.


netbacker said...

to stop spending money we don’t have…

The US is a sovereign nation that has its own currency, so it can never run out of money. The S&P downgrade just proved that.
We left the gold standard on Aug 15 1971, so why are we still basing all monetary decisions based on the gold standard?

netbacker said...

The Federal government is the monopoly supplier of currency. The currency unit created by it via deficit spending can only be extinguished by payment of taxes. Therefore, a modern monetary system can best be thought of as a system of debits and credits where government deficit spending credits the private sector and payment of taxes debits the private sector.

As the issuer of the currency the government should be actively involved in regulating and helping build the infrastructure within which the private sector can generate economic growth.

Government deficit spending and tax collection should be maintained at a rate that does not impose financial hardship on the private sector. Because the Federal government is not a state or household it should not manage its balance sheet for its own benefit. Rather, taxes and government spending should be managed in a way that most benefits the private sector and encourages private sector prosperity, productivity, innovation and growth.

The government is an entity created by the people and for the people. It exists to further the prosperity of the private sector – NOT to benefit at its expense. If this entity is allowed to exist for its own benefit or becomes corrupted by a concentration of power or abuse of its monopoly supplier powers it will become susceptible to dissolution via the populace’s rejection of that government.

Benjamin Cole said...

I might vote for Paul Ryan. Or Ron Paul, if he would drop his gold nut stuff.

Meanwhile, here is shocking quote from the very conservative Richard Fisher, Dallas Fed Chief.

"If you look at social security as a piece of cake, $13.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities; roughly the size of our GDP. I'm sure our political authorities can figure out a way to deal with that someway, somehow. If you look at Medicare on the other hand, it's $85.6 trillion by our calculation, present discounted value -- infinite horizon discounted value, as economists call it. If we paid it off today, 85.6 trillion (dollars) -- Karen, you'd better start worrying about this now. I'll tell you why. And just to break it down: A, which is hospitals, is 34-plus trillion (dollars), B, 34 trillion (dollars), and my favorite, prescription drug coverage, created by a Texan president, a Harvard MBA, a conservative Republican, is now amounting to $17.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities in today's value if we paid it off today. That's greater than all of Social Security, it's been in place for 29 months and we're in an election year. We need to do something about it. If we were to pay it off today, it would be 1.3 (million) for every family of four, $333,000 for every one at 304 million Americans. And it's just growing and growing and growing."

Did you read that? Medicare prescription drug coverage, the Bush jr. favorite, all by itself will be more expensive than our entire Social Security system. Ouch.

And I should vote for the GOP? Really?


Squire said...

There are two kinds of people. Those who think the government’s job is to make as many people dependent on the government as possible. And those who think the government should try to make as many people as possible self sufficient.

Don’t let it be said that all politicians are bad. Paul Ryan is great.

bob wright said...

The Senate has not passed a budget in over 1000 days - and yet nothing happens.

1) If the Senate is required to pass a budget but hasn't, how exactly is the federal government running? Is a budget required or isn't it?

2) Do you think nothing would happen if I didn't submit my tax return for 1000 days after the April 15 deadline?

If democrats don't have to follow the law and pass a budget, why should I have to follow the law and send in my tax returns?

bob wright said...

Between 10 million and 20 million Mexicans ignore U.S. law and live in this country illegally.

If 10 million to 20 million small business owners decide to ignore U.S. law and not pay federal income taxes, do you think they would be treated the same way by the Obama administration? Would the Obama administration prohibit IRS agents from asking the small business owners for their documentation?

brodero said...

Bottom Line...general elections
are decided by the 15 to 20% of voters
who call themselves independent
and tell pollsters they are moderate in much as
liberals and conservatives want to think the country thinks like them
this is a basic electoral fact.

Rich said...

You're confusing rhetoric with actions. I thought you were smarter than that. Austerity in a deep recession is toxic to govt. revenue raising.

If you are interested in actual solutions, try this -

This is a Woody Brock lecture- 70 minutes long, but well worth viewing.

John said...

Bring on Paul Ryan! Let's have a true conservative to head a major party ticket.

Too bad corporatists in the Republican Party would never have him. They need the fat procurement contracts. They love public-private partnerships that ensure private profits and leave the public holding the bag.

Junkyard_hawg1985 said...


It is not to late to have Paul Ryan as the nominee. If no one gets a majority of delegates, then at the convention, an alternate nominee could be selected. This occurred in 1920 with Warren G. Harding who went on to win by the largest margin in history. My personal preference is Mitch Daniels, however, I would be equally thrilled with Paul Ryan*. When I cast my vote in Tennessee for President, I will be voting for Rick Santorum at the state level, but voting for Newt Gingrich's delegates at the Congressional level. Split the delegates to get a new nominee. If I lived in Virginia, I would be voting for Ron Paul.

* Paul Ryan once had my dream job - driving the Oscar Mayer weinermobile.

djakel said...

Paul Ryan was my pick a year ago and still would be if we can draft him at the convention. Unless either Santorum or Romney implodes, I think neither will win enough delegates prior to the convention. At a deadlocked convention, Ryan would be the best candidate to articulate the case for small vs. big gov't against Obama.