« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

If Only Paul Ryan’s Plan Were as Radical as the Democrats Claim

Choice for Republicans involves trusting the American people to handle their affairs and retirement. Choice for Democrats involves only the option to kill children, with everything else pre-packaged in one size fits all government bureaucracy.”

It is mathematically indisputable that should President Barack Obama obtain his legislative desire and increase taxes on those making $250,000.00 a year or more the nation would not close even this year’s budget deficit. Never mind the $16 trillion in national debt, the income brought in through that tax increase would not balance this year’s federal budget.

It is also mathematically indisputable that should the Democrats’ obtain the ultimate fantasy of the grade school marxists routinely populating the ranks of left-wing economists, more commonly referred to as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement — confiscating 100% of income from all those making $250,000.00 a year or more — the nation still would not close this year’s budget deficit.

Marxist sounding pablum about the rich paying their fair share and not building their businesses aside, the Democrats’ covetousness of American salaries accomplishes nothing more than temporarily satiating their addiction to spending. Paul Ryan, as Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential nominee, has made a career of shining the spotlight on the Democrats’ addiction to spending.

Paul Ryan’s budget plan, called the “Path to Prosperity” has become a necessary lightening rod on the road to fiscal sanity. Because of the President’s spending addiction, the nation has been without a real budget for more than one thousand days. President Obama’s budget plans for the past few years have been too radical even for the most radical Democrats in Congress, failing to pass even the Democrat controlled Senate with a single vote.

Despite the rhetoric from spending addicts on the left, Paul Ryan’s plan is not the radical path conservatives would prefer. The plan does not balance the federal budget for three decades and is premised on the assumption that future congresses will show restraint. Three decades is an extraordinarily long time, but the plan does eventually balance, which is something the President’s own budget never does.

The Democrats will demagogue Paul Ryan’s budget plan. They already have run commercials showing a Paul Ryan look alike shoving a grandmother off a cliff. The hysteria ignores that under Paul Ryan’s plan senior citizens will not see their medicare benefits affected.

Under his slow moving plan, people 55 and younger begin to have choices they can make about their future retirement and healthcare needs. The Ryan plan moves people fully out of the present failing system into more modern options within the control of the taxpayer himself. But it only does so for people more than a decade away from retiring. For taxpayers who increasingly distrust Washington and who think the present system will not be their for them anyway, it gives them control of their future in a way Democrats only talk about about.

Choice for Republicans involves trusting the American people to handle their affairs and retirement. Choice for Democrats involves only the option to kill children, with everything else pre-packaged in one size fits all government bureaucracy. These two visions of choice will be at the heart of the 2012 Presidential campaign season.

Paul Ryan’s plan, sadly, is not nearly as aggressive as it should be or could be. It takes too long to balance the budget. It keeps too many people in the present entitlement system for too long. But it begins, at least, to fix the system and give choices about retirement and healthcare the present system does not.

More importantly, this “Path to Prosperity” tackles issues directly weighing on our economy and future that President Obama has had four years to tackle and chose demagoguery and passing the buck instead. As Ed Morrisey notes over at Hot Air, even Erskine Bowles of the Bowles-Simpson Commission called Paul Ryan’s plan “honest” and “serious” and took issue with President Obama “for dishonestly attempting to evade a true comparison and for back-loading cuts in order to claim $4 trillion in reductions over 12 years.”

Paul Ryan’s plan exist. Barack Obama’s is just three card monty.

COMMENTS

  • izoneguy
  • commonsenseobserver

    And both of them in the White House will embrace the RSC Budget and other excellent conservative plans, including the Toomey Budget, the Lee Budget, and Sen. Coburn’s Back in Black. Sen. Paul’s is a bit too controversial, but offfers an interesting addition to the debate.

  • commonsenseobserver

    But those who pretend to care about seniors…

  • gmscan

    Many political pundits continue to think of the elderly in the old terms of FDR-New Deal stereotype of the past. Today’s seniors are the people who elected Ronald Reagan, not FDR. They believe in freedom and markets.

    On Morning Joe today Chuck Todd reflected this liberal stereotype. He said that seniors don’t care about choice, they care about security. WRONG! That may have been true of the Depression-era elderly. It is decidedly not true of today’s cohort, as witnessed by the success of Medicare Advantage and Part D.

  • evilbloggerlady

    Here is a Mediate post on how Dems want to kill Ryan quick. From the comments from liberals it is obvious they want to do this. Conservatives should get on sites like this and fight back with comments pointing out the fallacies of these attacks.

  • izoneguy

    Are missing the BIG point…..
    Everyone acts like MediCare and SS will continue as long as there are humans on the earth.
    EVERYTHING ends – including US government “entitlement” programs.

    If America’s economy is not allowed to grow then everything is a moot point.
    If Obama flips the country to an all out Marxist state then the US will become the old Soviet Union – except with no eternal power to project.
    It will be a revolution at that point – much worse then what Syria is going through. I almost feel sorry for the liberals. (But not really) They won’t stand a chance once they blow up the ballot box.

  • tnguy

    ….running on a platform of bankrupting energy companies and insulting us fools who cling to our God and our guns.

    How on earth can anybody give credit to any bloc of voters? The sad, scary truth is that Americans as a whole have become lazy, ignorant and uninformed. There’s little other explanation as to how a Bolshevik sits at the head of a free peoples’ government. Obama’s class warfare works. Unless Romney finds a way to combat it with an even more aggressive approach, he might as well quit now.

  • Ausonius

    I just wrote this morning that my own wife had trouble paying attention to Ryan dismantling MAObamaCare point by point “in 6 minutes” on YouTube.

    “He talks too fast” and there was “too much information.”

    I have repeatedly written that if a majority of those 70 million had read BIG BRObama’s books, he would not have gotten into power.

    On the other hand…and here is the chilling aspect…maybe the majority did pay attention…and like what he stands for!

    Convincing such people that their ideas lead to national bankruptcy and decline will be a real challenge, since most will not know or understand basic History thanks to our wonderful 40+ year tradition of incompetent education.

  • cwfoster

    Seniors care. We get that, but what I think all of the liberals and a lot of the nervous Nellies on here are missing is WHAT they care about!

    I think many care about hits their retirement accounts took when the GM takeover blew off the bondholders, stealing their investments from them, when THEY would have been the first paid off if GM had declared bankruptcy. To THEM GM might just as well have gone bankrupt!

    I think they care, that no matter HOW much they have put aside for retirement, runaway inflation that can only be staved off so much longer, and be made worse by printing money out of thin air will render it all worthless, unless the government get’s spending under control, and begins to pay down the debt.

    I think they care that at age 80, they may not be deemed productive enough to justify the Obamacare bureaucrats spending the money on that triple bypass, or that hip replacement.

    I’ve read alot on here about what a risk it was to pick Ryan, and tie Romney to the Ryan budget. THAT same thinking said it was insanity to nominate Ronald reagan in 1980! The independents and undecideds don’t want more unspecified hopey changey BS they fell for last time. They want to know what they’re getting. No more pig-in-a-poke. SHOW them some ideology! Give them a plan! Hanging back and not giving them some meat will not be enough to get the mandate we need to steamroll OUR side into abandoning their RINO ways!

    Election finance laws FORBID coordination between Super Pacs and campaigns. Some mud isn’t palatable for a candidate to be caught throwing, but a Super Pac can, and should! Why haven’t I seen someone get Brian Terry’s parents up in an ad asking if Obama doesn’t have their son’s blood on his hands, why did he claim executive privilege to withold DoJ documents supeonaed by Congress? When will we see defense contractors laid off in the face of pending defense cuts saying “Obama cost me my job, and my health insurance, and I’ve spent every NICKLE of my retirement savings” (WE are out here!) What about ads featuring UMW miners, who were thrown under the bus by Richard Trumka (himself having come UP through the UMW) by supporting Democrats who are causing mines to close in Ohio and West Virginia?

    Play it safe my BUTT! GO FOR THE THROAT! The OTHER side said if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun. OK, go nuclear and see what they have!

  • camurd

    The time has come to throw President Bush Sr & Jr under the bus. Yes, they are part of the GOP, but they are not members of the Reagan Republicans nor are they Conservatives. It is time to make a clear a firm break from their policies and get back to the platform of President Reagan. “LIMITED GOVERNMENT”

    As far as the Ryan plan taking too long, well this is like a ocean liner, you have to plan the turn now in-order to be heading in the right direction at the right time. My only problem is that future Congresses are not bound to follow the plan or restrained and it is due to the law so what are you going to do?

  • evilbloggerlady

    the Mainstream Media may be able to portray Romney and Ryan as flesh eating zombies.

    Seriously, who at the GOP and Team Romney agreed to this? Because they should be fired.

  • devany

    Donald Trump wrote ?The Art of the Deal?, helped Mr. Romney lock up the conservative base in the primary, and proposed a national net wealth tax back in 2000. The selection of Paul Ryan shows a brave willingness on the part of Mr. Romney to upset the applecart of government tax and spending reform. Ryan?s boldest tax idea was to replace the corporate income tax with an 8 ?% value added tax.

    In truth, the details of Ryan?s plan were not well thought out because although the VAT would have worked for C corporations, it would have been a disaster for pass-through businesses that pay income taxes at the individual rates of the business owners. The House Republican?s latest proposal is for two income brackets of 10% (for those who also subject to the 15% payroll taxes) and a 25% bracket for high earners. Anyone who can add 10 and 15 is able to see the striking similarity with the proposed flat tax of Steve Forbes. Of course, the Republican bill retains enough tax expenditures for high earners that it could make Mr. Forbes blush. These are presumably intended for later compromise with the Democratic opposition because Mr. Ryan knows how to ?Deal?.

    Mr. Romney?s tax reform outline, with its 20% across the board tax cut, contains some of the same features as the Republican plan. Unfortunately, Mr. Romney?s desire to include the middle class in the 20% cut was shown by the Tax Policy Center to be mathematically suspect as a result of an analysis of likely tax expenditures that would be eliminated to make the package revenue neutral.

    The best part of Mr. Romney?s tax reform outline may be its lack of finality and his selection of Mr. Ryan only adds to the conclusion that all options may still be on the table. Mr. Romney may be destined to join bold ideas like a VAT (Ryan) and net wealth tax (Trump) together. Innovation is what Romney does best. Just think ?Bain-RomneyCare-Olympics? and it becomes easy to imagine a new American approach to tax reform:

    For Business ? an 8% income tax and 4% VAT
    For Individuals ? an 8% income tax and 2% net wealth tax (excluding $15,000 cash, and retirement funds)

    The 2-4-8 tax blend resolves the five major problems in today?s economy generally overlooked by other tax reforms:
    ? Payroll taxes of 15% discourage new job creation [new jobs without government spending!]
    ? Social Security and Medicare consume too much of the income tax base [new base low rates!]
    ? The wealth gap is the result of the tax code which left half the country with only 3.6% of the net wealth in 1995 and by 2010 it was only 1.1% ($584 billion) [wealth redistribution corrected!]
    ? Tax expenditures are secret transfers (computed only on private tax returns) which each year redistribute $1.3 trillion – twice the wealth owned by half the country [loopholes eliminated!]
    ? Capital gains and estate taxes inhibit business reinvestment [both taxes unnecessary!]

    Let us know at TaxNetWealth.com if you can identify a logical, legal or economic reason why this 2-4-8 Tax Blend would not produce a sustainable economic recovery as promised. Otherwise, let your representatives in Washington know that you expect them to support bold tax reform or die trying by simply forwarding a copy of this comment.

    Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA

  • checkmate2012

    cuts from Medicare over 10 years per the CBO, are not savings, but instead are used to pay for other parts of O’care and not used to shore up the program.

    O Teams says that they are going to find that so called savings primarily by eliminating fraud and abuse. Great idea but a lie. But if we play along, O will have to find about $200 Million savings per day for the next 10 years to add up to the $716B in savings.

    We paid about $1.7 Billion Per DAY in July on interest payments alone on the national debt.

    I’m not a math whiz, but don’t see how the numbers add up.

    Here’s a great article based on CBO #’s and all the cuts made in Obamascare to get to the $716 B in savings:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/01/obamacare-robs-medicare-of-716-billion-to-fund-itself/

  • reclaimit

    Great to see R&R in Florida, heading off this Mediscare nonsense. I don’t expect this to be a problem, but Florida is a must win state, and they have to convince the elderly that cuts won’t touch anyone older than 55. I’m glad they are beating dems to the punch down there.

  • boballab

    Ryan’s plan over Obama’s. In a lecture Bowles ,who if we all remember was Obamas pick to Co-Chair the Deficit Reduction committee and Clinton’s Chief of Staff, thinks Ryan is the man:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dbzpuqWo6yU

    I wonder if the Romney campaign will use this clip, they should.