Share This Article with a Friend!


The GOP’s Paul Ryan Problem

Paul Ryan
Back in 2011, when Paul Ryan’s name was floated as a possible Republican presidential candidate we said, “Not so fast, Paul” and pointed out that his much ballyhooed “Path to Prosperity” budget plan allowed spending to rise to $4 trillion over the next five years.

Even worse in the minds of fiscal conservatives and limited government constitutional conservatives, Ryan's proposal reduced deficits, but it did not eliminate them until 2040, 27 years from now, according to the CBO analysis. The "Path to Prosperity" document included projections for the public debt between 2011 and 2021, and it showed debt going up every single year.  Ryan's budget showed the debt increasing to $16.2 trillion in 2012 (we’ve already blown past that) and rising every year after that up to $23.1 trillion in 2021 – and the latest projections show it rising even faster than those made back in 2011. 

Despite Ryan’s command of the budget numbers he seems incapable of grasping – or more likely simply ignored – the basic law of Washington spending and politics: for every dollar of revenue raised spending inevitably goes up more than a dollar.

Back in the late 1980s, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a study for Congress’ Joint Economic Committee that found that every dollar of new taxes imposed led to more than one dollar of new spending.  Over the ensuing years that study has been updated and the results are always the same.

In November 2010, Vedder and The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore released an updated and more sophisticated version of the study showing that “over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in – and a little bit more.”

What Moore and Vedder found was that no matter how you controlled for the economic variables, spending always went up faster than revenue.  The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship – between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how they configured the data and no matter what variables they examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

As Vedder and Moore noted, “The only era in modern times that the budget has been in balance was in the late 1990s, when Republicans were in control of Congress. Taxes were not raised, and the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997. The growth rate of federal spending was dramatically reduced from 1995-99, and the economy roared.”

The sequester worked because it was aimed strictly at the spending side of the federal budget, which is why Democrats hated it.

The problem we have today is that, led by Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and the rest of the current House Republican “leadership,” Republicans refuse to hold to the conservative principles that were proven to work back in the late 1990s.  

If we were inclined to be charitable we would say that today’s House Republican “leaders” don’t seem to understand that liberals and the Democratic Party exist solely to divide-up the spoils extorted from producers by the welfare state and that cutting federal spending undermines their very reason for being. 

However, the unholy alliance of House Appropriations Committee members, military industrial complex do-boys and principle-free professional politicians who came together behind the Ryan spending deal, shows us that deep down inside establishment Republicans are ready to enter into “grand bargains” to raise taxes and increase spending not because they don’t understand, but because they share those same impulses.

The slogan, “Bad, but not as bad as Obama” isn’t going to elect another Republican president or garner many liberty minded votes in a congressional election, but that’s where Paul Ryan is taking those House Republicans who drank to Kool-Aid and voted for the deal he “negotiated” with the Democrats.

Paul Ryan’s record of supporting TARP, supporting the Bush administration’s spending binge, supporting the 2011 debt ceiling deal and now leading the effort to un-do the one conservative element of that deal that was actually working, shows that, despite the evidence that he lives his personal life according to conservative principles, he cannot be trusted to lead Republicans to govern America according to limited government constitutional conservative principles.

Share this

hang tough

I really get tired of the leftists and RINOS surrendering before the negotiations begin. Rather than use *all* of the rules and procedures to their max, they repeatedly wimp out. Rather than jump in to back good Republicans, the RINO losership strive to undermine them. Rather than so much as propose bills to turn back the depredations of the previous session or administration, they propose making the laws only a little bit worse, not making them worse as quickly as the dedicated leftists.

I got tired of it back in the 1960s when over-spending and over-regulation and the proliferation and expansion of leftist programs were not quite extreme as they are now... when the local city adopted income extortion... and only a few years later the whole state. And what are they doing with those revenues? Very little that is good, and a lot that is bad.

When are these extreme leftist programs going to be turned back? When will we at least see some persistence on our side, repeatedly drafting bills, session after session, congress after congress, president administartion after administration until these unconstitutional depredations are turned back? ObummerDoesn'tCare, Medicaid, Medicare, the Socialist Insecurity Abomination.

It Really Steals and regressive income extortion -- a radical socialist platform plank since at least the 1840s and targeted political weapon which kept non-leftists groveling and fetching through election cycles.
NSA, contrary to their publicly touted charter, engaging in domestic privacy violations, 4th amendment violations.

FAST & FURIOUS as a propaganda leverage point aimed at undermining the 2nd amendment (originally the 4th, BTW, the first 2 being a prohibition against congress-critters giving themselves raises without an election in between, nullified years before it was ratified by statutory "automatic" increases; and setting the proportion of representatives between 1 for every 30K and 1 for every 50K, now moot due to unfortunate wording).

The always increasing and never decreasing pretend DEBT LIMIT but most of all the lies and violations of their oaths of office over the last century by both presidents and congressional losership.

Push for the most non-leftist candidates but don't cut your nose off by not voting. Work in the primaries to see that a non-leftist candidate is at least in the running. (This is something in doubt in many districts. There was a time I moved and as I was registering to vote the county's chief elections official, truthfully, told me that if I didn't register as being affiliated with the leftist party I would not get a chance to vote on any candidates at all. All of the candidate elections at that time and place were decided in the leftist party primary.)

Don't let up the pressure to unseat the worst of the leftists, but don't let that divert us from putting the most effort into the more competitive races -- the ones most likely to make a difference -- and strive to break up the rigged, non-competitive districts every 10 years. Work with the 3rd parties instead of against them whenever there is common cause. If there are just plain zero good Republican options in a district, back the best candidate who will drive back the leftists and advance the Tea Party Republican/conservative cause rather than back an unreliable RINO who has no "fire in his belly" for the cause.

Meanwhile, what are the GOP losership doing with the tens of millions in their losership PACs?

How many times are we deceived by good-sounding PAC names rather than good actions (like the Zuckerberg/Bloomberg/Soros PACs with "conservative" in the name, which has been advertising heavily with the aim of undermining conservatives)?

What candidates are they backing? Are they backing good, solid non-leftists or RINO wimps who surrender first because actually negotiating is an after-thought?

Are we donating funds and effort that are being abused aginst us or, into PACs and individual candidates which will do good?

Will the best candidates come out of the primaries, or only the semi-leftist media darlings who will be striving against us?

(Hmmm, the advertised "Lines nd paragraphs break automatically" doesn't appear to be happening.)

Senate

I really get tired of the TEA PARTY and so-called conservatives expecting the house to pass a TEA Party budget when there is no chance of it getting through the Senate or the President. So blasting an attempt to keep the conversation on other things rather than a government shutdown. No! the budget agreement was not that good but it takes the conversation off a government shutdown and back to the issues which will get Republicans elected. Obama Care, IRS, NSA,FAST & FURIOUS, DEBT LIMIT but most of all the lies this administration is guilty of.
Until the conservatives are smart enough to recognize the simple fact that their agenda cannot be accomplished until Republicans can take the Senate and then hopefully the Presidency.
Stupid positions on ideological subjects are getting us nowhere. Take the Senate with the best Republicans available that can win. Then push for a constitutional agenda and platform.
Until the TEA party becomes pragmatic on its approach to candidates we will continue to give elections to Democrats.
To hear idiots state there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is stupid. Maybe on some social issues but the Republican platform is way different than the Democratic.
So pushing for a third party or not voting is giving everything to the Democrats. How is that working out?
Push for the most conservative candidate but don't cut your nose off inspired of your face by not voting

Paul Ryan"s Budget Proposals.

I disagree with the commentary made about Ryan in part and agree in part.
It appears to me that what he and the House GOP Representatives are doing is allowing the budget issues to become "Non-issues" for next year's elections for both the House and Senate. It is a move that has its dangers but if one is a Republican up for re-election it provides a safe harbor to advise voters that a safe budget that carries beyond 2014 elections is in the best interest of the GOP and stability of the country.
If both houses are controlled by the GOP in 2014 then re-writing the budget with an eye towards stability and balance within our country's taxing income will be possible; remember that nothing Congress does is written in concrete and it can be changed anytime.

Solve Real Problems, not D.C.Political Problems

Way past time to deal with real problems, not the D.C.political problems of let's get along or let's pretend.

3 goals worth pursing in an act of good faith include:

1. Ryan-Murry stiffs the veterans. Honorable men and women do not do this but then in Congress and the Senate it is difficult if not impossible to find one honorable man or woman. How callous and uncaring.
Eight terms in Congress, and Ryan still does not understand what most of us deem worthy and honorable. He lacks gravitas. Ryan is simply ignorant. Any fellow who permits a photo op in the gym and wearing the gimmy hat with the bill backward is simply stupid. He may stand tall with his fellow GOP crowd but I perceive him as a cub in the Washington Zoo.

2. Though a quasi-government organization, the Postal Service needs to be transformed
into an efficient and sustainable agency rather than ignored.

3.The Social Security Trust Fund, depleted by the fox in the henhouse LBJ and the Democrats in 1965 to
fund the guns and butter pipe dream of LBJ [in Nam] ,needs to be refilled from tax revenues that presently exist
at the expense of the welfare and educational and enviormental lobbies and agencies. Can't have it all because
Christmas does not come 365 days of the year in Washington.