Price to Pay For Being a Responsible (Conservative) Politician

More:
Print This Post
Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has proposed massive, desperately need federal government spending cuts as well as tax rate reductions in his “Road to Prosperity”. Troves of empirical data support this approach – benefiting all except the demagogic Liberal politicians.
The vast majority of the Democrats still irrationally support continued unrestrained federal spending and high and increasing taxes, tax rates and fees. They never can have enough of other people’s money to spend. A larger, more controlling and intrusive government that knows best is their ideology. Control the masses, engender their dependency and buy votes by wealth transfer from those who work, particularly the higher wage earners.
Cal Vs. Krug
Investor’s Business Daily 04/11/2011

Taxes And Spending: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's bold entitlement reform plan goes beyond taming spending. It recognizes that the history of cutting taxes vindicates Calvin Coolidge, not Paul Krugman.
Rep. Ryan has emerged as someone the country has been waiting for: a fearless, energetic politician with the guts to propose a detailed reform of the out-of-control, until-now-untouchable federal mandatory spending programs. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, with their annual automatic spending increases, now make up roughly 60% of outlays.
Some might find irony in Ryan ending up as spending hawk-in-chief, since back in the 1990s he was an aide to supply-side icons like Jack Kemp and Bob Kasten. Both were accused of caring too little about spending cuts as they fought for tax cuts to grow the economy and create millions of private jobs.
Today, after years of unchecked Democratic control of Congress and the White House, the problem of untamed government spending has become a runaway locomotive hurtling us toward a fiscal cliff.
The American public has reacted, spawning the populist Tea Party movement. And in this new environment, tax-cutting politicians are also spending-cutters.
But Ryan still recognizes, as did Kemp and Kasten, that low tax rates are key to restoring the greatness and vibrancy of the U.S. economy.
So when the New York Times' spending-addict columnist Paul Krugman launched his error-riddled attack on Ryan's plan last week, his first volley targeted not spending but Ryan's tax cuts. Ryan would bring both the individual top tax rate and the soon-to-be-highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate down to 25%.
According to Krugman, "Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves" because they "would set off a gigantic boom."
It's so many years after Ronald Reagan's tax cuts produced the longest peacetime economic expansion in history — extending past the brief George H.W. Bush recession to the Internet revolution of the 1990s. One might have hoped that the losers of the tax-cut debate would, by now, have gone the way of the Berlin Wall.
But then, had history been heeded, the Krugmans actually would have been laughed off the political stage long before Reagan. John F. Kennedy knew when he bucked fiscal liberals in his party and pushed hard for cutting tax rates — including those on high incomes — that President Calvin Coolidge had proved tax cuts do exactly what Krugman says they don't: produce new jobs and fill government coffers with new revenues.
As Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, pointed out in a paper for the Cato Institute, "detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s — including large cuts at the top end — resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes."
De Rugy found that as "the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60% or more (to a maximum of 73%) to just 25%, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year." From 1922 to 1929, real GNP grew 4.7% a year and unemployment fell from 6.7% to 3.2%.
What Krugman mocks as "trickle-down" was actually a tsunami of prosperity that expanded by 84% those making between $10,000 and $100,000 annually.
Taxes and spending can't be divorced. The Krugman way of big spending and high tax rates condemns future generations to never-ending government dependency.
Ryan's way not only reforms and saves entitlements. It saves us from the left's goal of a Europeanized American economy.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568766/201104111904/Cal-Vs-Krug.htm
More:
Print This Post
The following video is of Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI) delivering the Republican's weekly message, this one on government spending.
More:
Print This Post
Included in the House’s proposed 2012 budget is a complete defunding of Obamacare by the Republicans and the providing effective alternatives with far greater flexibility and immensely less cost. This offers the long needed fiscal responsibility by the federal government as well as options that the voters want.
Plain. Simple. Transparent.
GOP Budget Proposal: 'Not a Penny' for Obamacare
Terence P. Jeffrey April 05, 2011

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R.-Wis. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The fiscal 2012 budget proposal unveiled today by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) offers sweeping reforms in federal spending, including defunding and repealing the health-care law signed last year by President Barack Obama and converting the federal share of the Medicaid program into block grants to state governments.
The Republican proposal says one of its aims is “making sure that not a penny goes toward implementing the new [health care] law” enacted last year.
This includes repealing about $800 billion in new taxes that were built into the law.
The proposed Republican budget resolution lists as one of its “key objectives” that it “Repeals and defunds the President’s health care law, advancing instead common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.”
“There is no way for ‘experts’ in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know,” says the proposal. “The new health-care law, rammed through Congress last year on a partisan vote, has taken the nation one step closer to this fully government-run system.
“The problems with this approach are already popping up all over the country,” says the proposal. “Health care costs continue to escalate relentlessly. The new law has aggravated the worst aspects of the U.S. health care system, without fixing what was broken. The country needs to move away from this centralized system, not towards it.
“This budget starts by repealing the costly new government-run health care law, saving roughly $725 billion over ten years by repealing the new exchange subsidies and making sure that not a penny goes toward implementing the new law,” says the resolution.
“Then, this budget goes further with reforms that make government health-care programs more responsive to consumer choice.”
On the health-care tax front, the resolution says: “The health-care law enacted last year contained roughly $800 billion in new taxes and tax increases--the result of dozens of changes to tax law that added complexity and unfairness to the code.” The proposal calls for repealing all of these new taxes and tax increases as part of repealing the entirety of the Obamacare law.
One of the new health-care reforms proposed by the GOP budget is converting the federal share of Medicaid—the federal-state program that provides health insurance to low-income people—into block grants to state governments.
The proposal says the GOP budget aims to: “Secure the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations.”
The GOP budget proposal notes that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal Medicaid spending would increase by $627 billion over the next decade under Obamacare, which increases the number of people eligible for the program.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-budget-proposal-making-sure-not-penn
More:
Print This Post
Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI) is taking his responsibilities as House Budget chief very seriously – just what the electorate wants but will clearly pay a high price for his diligence. He will soon unveil a concrete, effective plan for entitlement reform that unfortunately will be resoundingly attacked by the Democrats and receive little support from many Republicans.
The reasons?
Politics. Plain and simple.
The Democrats see this as an opportunity to sway voters who are addicted to entitlements and don’t want them reduced. Republicans are afraid that being fiscally prudent and responsible will cost them votes – and re-election.
This explains, in essence, why the issues of massive government spending with increasing deficits and debt have not been definitively addressed in the past.
Ryan Drumroll
Investor’s Business Daily 03/25/2011
Fiscal Responsibility: House Budget chief Paul Ryan will soon propose detailed entitlement reform. That he is sure to be savaged — even by fellow Republicans — shows how little Washington appreciates courage.
Ryan, a conservative Wisconsinite, will in early April unveil a budget that promises to be among "the boldest fiscal documents in history."
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — the House Democrats' fundraising arm — already has a website, stopbenefitcuts.com, condemning the plan as "an extreme Republican scheme that will dismantle Social Security and Medicare as we know it."
At the Manhattan Institute's Reagan Centennial conference on supply-side economics last Tuesday, former Reagan and Bush administration economist Lawrence Lindsey said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi believes the GOP won the House because senior citizens abandoned the Democrats, and she wants them back.
"She is going to make the issue be, 'We are not going to cut your entitlements,'" Lindsey told the audience.
Ryan is also sure to be attacked by anti-spending purists like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. But House leaders and key GOP senators, such as Senate Budget Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama and freshman Marco Rubio of Florida, can be expected to give Ryan support.
The inevitable "dime-store Democrat" Republicans who will score political points by criticizing Ryan for his boldness are the most deplorable ones.
Based on past remarks, Ryan would change Medicaid to give governors freedom to tailor their states' plans to meet the needs of their particular low-income populations, in the spirit of the 1990s welfare reform.
Medicare would be reformed to give future beneficiaries a payment they could use to choose from a list of Medicare-approved plans. Social Security reform is not likely to take center stage in Ryan's plan.
Quibbles may be justified, but even hard-core Tea Party supporters should applaud Ryan when he makes history early next month by doing what no politician — not even Ronald Reagan — has ever done: get dead serious about cutting the spending of the most difficult-to-control programs of the federal government.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567267/201103251856/Ryan-Drumroll.htm
More:
Print This Post
There are few serious players who are willing to responsibly address our country’s rapidly approaching fiscal apocalypse. Surely this doesn’t include Obama who submitted his 2012 budget with a $1.7 trillion deficit which he claims will help solve our crisis. Oh, and of course, his plan includes similar gargantuan deficits for as far as the eye can see.
The Democrats are outraged at even a $6 billion cut out of $3.65 trillion. This miniscule amount represents approximately 25 hours of federal spending out of an entire year (of 8760 total hours).
Many Republicans are seeking far more in budget cuts, $60 - $200 billion. Unfortunately, these amounts still fall far short of what is needed.
Who are these (brave) individuals who are willing to put everything on the line in order to save our nation from fiscal calamity? They are all Republicans and Conservatives and include such names as Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint and Rep. Paul Ryan.
We need to give them our support as well.
Sen. Rand Paul introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan with Senators Lee and DeMint

Senator Rand Paul unveiled his five-year path to a balanced budget, which includes cutting four federal government departments: Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce and Housing and Urban Development.
The proposal also calls for the repeal of “Obamacare,” leaves entitlements untouched, and he also said he is willing to make changes to the cuts, but there will have to be cuts elsewhere.
Rand Paul said:
“While official Washington is sitting on their hands and ignoring the ever-expanding deficit, I am offering a real plan to rein in spending and address the looming debt crisis. The only way we can balance the budget is if we have real leadership, and the President has abdicated his leadership on this issue. It’s time to take bold action to bring our country back from the brink, and I am proud to start the conversation on how we go about that.”
Via ABC’s The Note:
“There’s a lot of things in here that everybody could agree to, Republicans and Democrats, but nobody’s leading on the president’s side and on our side we felt we needed to put this forward to get the debate started, at the very least.”
“There’s an argument for every federal program up here… Nobody’s coming up here asking me for money that’s not for a good reason. But the alternative is that we get into a point of financial disaster where nobody gets any money,” he said.
Fellow Tea Party Caucus members, Senators Mike Lee and Jim DeMint were by Paul’s side when he introduced this bill. Both men supported Paul and called for Washington to get serious about the budget and to make cuts. The country is in fiscal jeaopardy.
Senator Mike Lee challenged anyone who criticizes Paul’s plan to present something better rather than verbally criticize it.
“There may be some in this town who will disagree with the manner in which we’re proposing moving toward a balanced budget over a five year period. That’s fine, that’s understandable, that’s what this town is about… but to those who may disagree with it, to those who might want to attack it. I would ask that they come up with their own five year plan.”
Senator DeMint echoed Lee and said that balancing the budget may require “letting things go” back to the state level.
“There are functions and departments at the federal level that need to be devolved to the states. Part of balancing the budget is restructuring and devolving federal functions back the states, local communities and people,” he said.
DeMint said he did not agree with “every particular thing in here,” but stressed the importance of balancing the budget.
http://cubachi.com/2011/03/18/sen-rand-paul-introduces-five-year-balanced-budget-plan-with-senators-lee-and-demint/
More:
Print This Post
The antithesis of Obama. A breath of fresh air. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Already, he sounds far more sincere, knowledgeable, articulate and charismatic than virtually any other Republican politician out there who may have a chance at the Presidential nomination in 2012. Presently, he claims not to be ready nor have ambitions at this time.
Rep. Paul Ryan may be our best hope of the theoretical Republican Presidential candidates. (The other consideration is Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey who has expressed similar sentiments as those of Ryan.)
More:
Print This Post
“Contempt for the people and their just laws are the hallmarks of tyranny.”
What an insightful, succinct statement (from the following article)! And also quite apropos for the present.
Why?
Because this is what we are witnessing in Washington now unlike any time in our past since the founding of our nation. We have had arrogant, unpleasant Presidents and politicians in the past but they all pale to our present perfect storm of the contemptuous and pathologically narcissistic “president” Obama, Congressional Democrats and the complicit news media (which years ago actually defended the people from the wicked, corrupt politicians).
America is turning into a tyranny and honest, hardworking Americans have become the victims.
This needs to stop or the next solution is a Second American Revolution. Like what has been occurring in Egypt. And against the rest of the Arab autocrats in the Middle East.
Short of this, the Tea Parties are our best hope and so are the brave and increasingly resolute Republicans in Congress, particularly the ones supported by the Tea Parties and the more conservative ones like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Rand Paul.
We must pledge them our support, time and money if we are to save our nation. This will also be for our children, grandchildren and so on.
We must also become politically involved and serve as individual mouthpieces for freedom and small government.
Or we will become slaves by proxy of a corrupt, disdainful and omnipotent Big Brother Central Government.
This must never happen!
Thus Ever Are Tyrants
Jim Mahoney February 19, 2011
Contempt for the people and their just laws are the hallmarks of tyranny. When the tyrant looks out upon the masses he bestrides, he doesn't see people; he sees objects to be manipulated, mulcted and molested. The sacred trust binding the people and their government means nothing to the tyrant. At best, it's merely an obstacle to his objective.
Because he has no kinship with the people, he feels as free to poach and plunder them as any other criminal. Having the power of the state at his disposal there is no limit to his predation.
A free people, recognizing that the tyrant reflects the corrupt state of all men, wisely hem in their governments with rules. Wherever possible they diffuse power away from individuals. Separation of powers, like the rest of our Constitution, reflects a wise suspicion of fallen human nature.
Only people who acknowledge man's inherent corruption as an immutable truth will ever be free. Only people humble enough to recognize their own failings will ever accept restraint. Consequently, these are the only people who will ever voluntarily submit themselves to the rule of law. They are also the only people fit to lead a free society.
A tyrant, on the other hand, is as sure of his own perfection as he is certain that no limits apply to him. No law will ever contain him. If a people are to remain free, their only hope is to keep him away from power.
Perhaps this is why, when Ben Franklin emerged from the constitutional convention in 1787, he famously told the woman that the delegates gave birth to a "republic, if you can keep it." Understanding human nature as well as he did, his wisdom may have given him a glimpse into the future. Sadly, for much of the following two centuries, Americans failed miserably to meet to his challenge.
Today, America's elite culture is a squalid sludge of contempt. It is the perfect media for breeding tyrants. As with other forms of rot, our tyranny grew and developed unnoticed. The sudden rise of the Tea Party is akin to a man awakening to realize he has been feeding the termites threatening to collapse his home.
Stampeded by a series of shocking events, followed by a flurry of dubious laws justified by hazy reasoning, frightened Americans allowed tyranny to grow unchecked at a blistering rate. The freedoms we enjoyed a scant 15 years ago are now a dim memory. Today we meekly submit to laws permitting sneak and peak searches, no knock warrants, and high tech invasions of our persons that would turn any Red commissar green with envy.
Does anyone remember that just 15 years ago Americans were free to travel in their own country without showing identity papers? Does anyone seriously think these intrusions will stop growing on their own?
Sadly they are all transgressions that anyone reading the Constitution can plainly see are forbidden. Yet somehow in the sludge of the elite mind they are justified: destroying our freedom is necessary to protect "freedom". Battered daily with messages of panic and despair, the land of the free and home of the brave has been transformed something different altogether.
Every one of these abuses arises from a fundamental contempt for free people and the rule of law that protects us. They are only a sample from a shamefully long list.
Consider: we have a President who, for whatever reason, defies demonstrating his Constitutional qualification to hold his office. Whether or not he is qualified is practically irrelevant compared to the damage his intransigence has done to our Constitution and rule of law. By tolerating his obstinacy, Americans forever waive their right to demand evidence that a future president be American born. Let your imagination run with the possibilities.
Think it's farfetched?
Consider: the most fearsome power of the Federal government is to make war. The Constitution assigns specific responsibilities to Congress and the Executive to declare and execute war. It is a thorny and arduous process. It's supposed to be. It's intended as a barrier against gratuitous death.
Yet the last constitutionally declared war ended in 1945. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed or maimed and millions slaughtered across the globe at the whim of a single man, defying or, at best finessing, the Constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war.
Protestors may howl about this president or that war. However, no one gives a thought to the brazen assault that undeclared, unconstitutional wars represent to the American people and our Republic. After 65 years of blind submission to this tyranny, why would the thought occur to anyone?
Does anybody seriously think there will ever be another constitutionally declared war? That protection's gone the way of the Whigs.
As bad as destroying our financial lives is, once Americans accepted sacrificing our young in this manner, it was only a matter of time before our emboldened "leaders" came for the rest of the loot.
Here is a documentary film showing the price today's brave young Americans and our Afghan "beneficiaries" are paying for no more reason than our President found himself impaled on his own talking points. As a result, another generation gets to pursue the deadly chimera of "hearts and minds" for no greater purpose than to pull the President's foot from his mouth.
Worse, while such horrors proceed in his name, the greatest pain this man experiences holding office is losing his privacy! Would we expect less compassion from George III?
The rise of the Tea Party is a grass-roots recognition that our liberty is too precious to leave to a dull priesthood of politicians and pundits. The finest Constitution on earth is just a piece of paper if the people it protects aren't prepared to enforce it. The mass rising of the populace embodied in the Tea Parties is an unprecedented threat to our budding dictators. It's no surprise their empire struck back with every lame insult its muddled minds could muster.
In their own way, the transparent calumnies hurled at Americans demanding the government obey our laws are comforting. If that's the best the elites have, perhaps many of the other walls they've built around us are equally flimsy.
Still, we are on the threshold of losing our Republic. As with other life threatening situations, admitting the problem is the first step: America, we have a tyranny! However, judging by the panicked response of the elites, we still have the means to thwart it. Demanding the government and its officials abide by the Constitution they are sworn to uphold and defend is our best hope.
Enforcing the demands is uncomfortable. They tyrant has many minions, conscious and otherwise. It's important to recognize that even those who proclaim themselves our friends can be as dangerous as our adversaries. Whether it's the Panjandrum of Fairness and Balance or the eye of the Peacock that alters all, those who ridicule the just concerns of the public are themselves the forces of darkness and ignorance.
Their conduct reveals their allegiance.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/thus_ever_are_tyrants.html
More:
Print This Post
If we want to protect our rights and freedoms and even recoup much of what has been lost, the relentlessly expanding federal Leviathan needs to be tamed and substantially reduced in size. Its immensity is a perpetual threat to the individual and not what our Founding Fathers desired or envisioned. They presciently knew the threats of a larger, more invasive and powerful central government and warned against this happening.
We need to support and elect individuals like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who declared in his response to Obama’s State of the Union address that: “We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.” Of its small role, he also opined that: “We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.”
None of these conditions are being met today.
We must make them a reality!
Choice, Not Compromise
Terry Paulson 2/14/2011

Rep. Paul Ryan’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union provides a clue to the political battle that is coming: “The principles that guide us; they are anchored in the wisdom of the founders in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.”
There is no compromise on opposite principles; it’s either empowered individuals or an all-powerful government. Thankfully the recent overreach by President Obama on healthcare reform, the Republican gains in November, and recent court decisions are moving things closer to a showdown in the Supreme Court and in the coming budget battle.
Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., concluded that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact the Affordable Care Act that required Americans to obtain commercial insurance. Judge Vinson argues that to allow the law to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power and narrow the scope of individual liberty. In Judge Vinson's words, "the more harm the statute does, the more power Congress could assume for itself under the Necessary and Proper Clause. This result would,…allow Congress to exceed the powers specifically enumerated in Article I." A Supreme Court decision looms on the horizon.
As President Obama delivers his 2012 Budget this week, the battle will accelerate. With Republicans looking to cut the size and spending of government by cutting the funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act, additional stimulus investments, and relief for debt-ridden states, the battle of all battles will begin. Glenn Beck, in his well-documented book Broke, challenges conservatives to focus the fight on the Constitution and core principles. Our founding fathers fought for equal rights, not rights to benefit some at the expense of others.
Beck points to Ayn Rand for an easy way to distinguish whether a right is in accordance with the Constitution. After any right is proposed, simply ask the question “at whose expense?” Is there a universal right to a college education or healthcare? At whose expense? Your right to life and liberty was not to come at expense of anyone else. As Ayn Rand wrote, “The government was set to protect man from criminals, and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government.” Individual rights were to supersede any government power.
Could it be that government “help” has just escalated the cost of healthcare and education? While published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, the median family income rose only 147 percent and healthcare cost rose only 250%. Are those increases a result of true costs to improve education or are they a result of the fact that they can get away with such charges because government provides more loans and grants? Parents, students and taxpayers are left with more debt because government tries to “help” by throwing your money at the “problem!”
How can citizens afford the cost of college and healthcare? By keeping most of the money they now give to government.
John Stossel, in Give Me a Break, shows Federal spending from 1789 to 2003. The line is all but flat until World War II. When America began, government cost the average citizen $20 in today’s money. That’s $20 a year! Taxes rose during wars, but for most of the history of America spending never exceeded a few hundred dollars per citizen. During World War II, government got much bigger. It was supposed to shrink again after the war. It never did; it just kept expanding. In 2010, federal spending ($6.3 trillion) cost every man, woman and child in this country just under $20,000 a year! If you aren’t paying that, you’re making your neighbor pay your share!
It’s not too late. Support politicians who are fighting to take back America to what it was formed to be—a beacon for liberty and opportunity not an invitation to dependence on big government!
http://townhall.com/columnists/terrypaulson/2011/02/14/choice,_not_compromise
More:
Print This Post
Comments