Posted by Tina
Paul Ryan is capturing the attention of folks both at home and abroad.
In my reading and research recently I discovered that Paul Ryan is making himself heard. He is winning the argument for “reform and replace” with respect to budgets and healthcare here and in Great briton. His ideas are not sweeping but they are strong and if implemented will sstart us down the path toward a more fiscally responsible government.
My research began with an article about a new book by Bob Woodward (Yes…that Bob Woodward), “The Price of Politics” will be out on September 11th. Apparently it contains an admission by President Obama that he handled Paul Ryan’s earnest budget proposal badly…posted at Breitbart:
According to ABC News, Obama told Woodward the tone of his speech at George Washington University in April of 2011, which he used to denounce Paul Ryan’s budget before meeting or discussing it with Ryan, was “a mistake.”
Obama told Woodward he had not been aware Ryan would be in the audience during the speech when he ripped apart the budget. Ryan attended the speech after he was invited by White House aides. Obama said then that Ryan’s budget was neither “serious” nor “courageous” and “deeply pessimistic.”
“I might have modified some of it so that we would leave more negotiations open, because I do think that they felt like we were trying to embarrass him,” Obama told Woodward. “We made a mistake.”
Those dastardly words: “serious” and “courageous”…no doubt they were plucked from comments made by David Brooks:
Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes….His proposal will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion….This budget tackles just about every politically risky issue with brio and guts….Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.
I’m sure the political left, and particularly the President, were quite unhappy with this gushing praise, after all, only Obama is supposed to be the recipient of media gush! Which thinking may have been the underpinning for the nasty attack that Obama now says was a mistake. (Was it a mistake because it was wrong and petty or because it hurt Obama politically? I don’t have to think long and hard on that one!)
If you recall Ryan was furious that President Obama would treat him with such utter contempt, like an underling rather than an elected representative of the people, especially after being invited. He told Mr. Woodward that he had agreed to come to the event after he was invited because he believed Obama intended to offer an “olive branch” for future negotiations. He later told Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the President, “I can’t believe you poisoned the well like that”.
One thing we should consider as we ponder budget issues in this election is whether we find Ryan’s work credible. There are plenty of detractors, see here and here.
But there are those who think this budget is not only workable but courageous in a time when unfunded entitlements are still very popular and very difficult to change.
Here’s an interesting endorsement. Bill Clinton is caught in an open mike discussion with Paul Ryan in May of last year telling Paul Ryan that he “hoped Democrats wouldn’t demagogue the Ryan budget plan & its reforms to Medicare”:
In a follow-up interview with ABC, reported at Talking Points Memo, Ryan said the following:
“This is not the time to go wobbly,” Ryan said, an in actual on-the-record interview. “They (Democrats) are going to run these attack ads at us regardless. This is a time for leaders to be leaders. This is not a time for us to follow our fears, this is a time to lead because if we don’t address our countries fiscal problems we are going to have a debt crisis and the people who are going to get hurt the first and the worst are the people who need government the most, the elderly and the poor.”
FreedomWorks rounds out the picture and goes on to compare Ryan;s budget to Obama’s:
The Obama budget reeks of “re-elect me.” (I’m thinking: Funny…his convention did too) After his budget died in the Senate with a 0-97 vote last year, President Obama decided to move farther left by abandoning any pretenses of concern over spending. His budget racks up trillions of dollars more in debt and never balances.
What message does Paul Ryan’s budget send? To an honest reader, the answer is mostly “compromise.” The Medicare reform at the heart of his budget is the result of a partnership with Senate Democrat Ron Wyden. The Ryan budget repeals ObamaCare, but a majority of Americans support repeal. The budget doesn’t really touch Social Security, and avoids drastic measures to balance the budget, only doing so in 2040. Just for a point of contrast, Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) budget proposes to balance the budget by 2017, more than twenty years earlier than Paul Ryan.
The question isn’t whether the Ryan budget is “too extreme” for serious consideration. The question is, should conservatives support it? After all, the Ryan budget is full of compromises. Programs and agencies that conservatives want to eliminate are instead reformed. The budget does not abolish a single department, whereas Rand Paul abolishes four.
It is very rare for a bill, let alone a budget, to make it through the legislative process without amendments or compromises. Particularly with a divided government, compromise is necessary for passing legislation. Does Paul Ryan compromise too much? Perhaps. Compared to the excellent “Tea Party Budget” proposed by Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee (R-UT), and Jim DeMint (R-SC), the Paul Ryan budget does not go as far in reforming and shrinking government as we would like. However, it is an excellent first step, and an undeniably massive improvement on the existing system or the Obama budget.
Now that Ryan is the Vice Presidential candidate his budget will be set aside as Romney takes the lead but his abilities to crunch the numbers will not go unused nor his ideas go unheeded.
An article with a catchy title in the Daily Mail, United Kingdom , caught my attention The piece, “The philosophy of the NHS is wrong and Jeremy Hunt should look to American Paul Ryan for a dose of reality” was a must read. Obviously the Brits are as engaged in this debate as are we! Dr. LeFever writes:
Our new Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, needs to look at ideas as well as numbers and vested interests.
He should listen to Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice for his vice presidential candidate in the USA elections, who has expressed concerns over the ideas upon which the NHS is based.
My(r) Ryan says that “Once a large number of citizens get their health care from the state, it dramatically alters their attachment to government. Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the expense of health care.”
He is absolutely right.
Dr. Robert LeFever, who has been treating addictive behavior for over a quarter century, insists:
Any thinker who allows himself or herself to be the property of someone else ceases to think. Doctors who allow themselves to become mere units in state provision of health care, rather than people who are responsible for their own philosophical and mental integrity, are not worth asking the time of day let alone their opinions on clinical or personal problems.
People often assume that the state will care for the less fortunate. When presented with evidence that it does not do so, they complain that it should – but do not feel obliged to take any positive helpful action themselves.
Thus the state is the cause of the Inverse Care Law, whereby those most in need of help are least likely to get it. The state creates a cruel, arid, uncaring society that smothers individual compassion and human charity.
Having worked in the NHS system and with patients in crisis Dr. LeFever is in a position to know the many ways that big government healthcare programs fail. He has good reason to be interested in the ideas put forth by Paul Ryan.
Ryan has shown he is serious about making things work, not creating solutions that cause more problems and spending and are designed, quite frankly, tokeep people dependent and voting. Here’s Ryan in action:
More here:
One thing is quite clear. Ryan is a serious wonk and he is in this game because he wants to do the things that will to put our country on a steadier path. What he has said and proposed took guts in the politically stale atmosphere of Washington DC. It’s clear he is leaving his political fortunes in the hands of fate (his God). This is the mark of a strong man of moral principle and faith and he is just what the doctor ordered for this ailing economy and nation. Is it too early to consider him for President in eight years?