Tag: Paul Ryan

Categories
Accountability general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies

A Broken Fix

carrot, sticks, congress, compromise, influence, illustration, Common Sense

It is universally acknowledged that Congress is all screwed up, but ideas differ on how to reform it.

Representative Paul Ryan (R‑Wisc.), in accepting the Speaker of the House position, admitted, “The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them.”

But how to fix what is broken?

In my opinion — and according to virtually every survey of Americans for the last 20 years — term limits would be the best first step.

Speaker Ryan, sadly, is no term limits fan. But at least he calls for “opening the process up” and a “new spirit of transparency.” Ryan promises “not [to] duck tough issues,” while seeking “concrete results.”

Chris Cillizza, writing “The Fix” blog for The Washington Post, predicts Ryan will “probably not” succeed.

Cillizza cites four big problems, the last two are obvious, though undefined: “3. Polarization in the country” that results in “4. Polarization in Congress.”

His No. 1 reason for the dysfunction in the House? The ban on earmarks. “Without a carrot to offer wavering members on contentious legislation,” Cillizza complains, “leadership had to rely almost exclusively on relationships and goodwill.”

Forget persuasion on the merits; apparently, congressional leadership should bribe members for their votes.

Next, Cillizza bemoans the “rise of outside conservative groups” able to speak against incumbents they oppose and for those they support. This means “the party leadership could no longer choke off campaign funds to those who refused to fall in line.”

“Falling in line” isn’t the right reform goal.

Meet another member of the Washington press corps with a strange hankering for boss rule.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

carrot, sticks, congress, compromise, influence, illustration, Common Sense

 

Categories
video

Video: Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity”

“Washington has not been telling you the truth,” says Rep. Paul Ryan — Mitt Romney’s selection for his running mate:

Consider what he offers, following up with the rest of the video in its second and third installments. 

But take caution. Rep. Ryan’s plan is very slow to take effect, if what you are aiming for is balanced budgets. And as David Boaz has argued, it’s a good example of Republican “me-​tooism,” of offering Democratic policy at an allegedly discounted price.

Contrary to what we are often told, there’s nothing radical about Ryan’s plan. Indeed, it’s so non-​radical, it makes him a perfect fit with Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. Of course, scuttlebutt has it that Romney will put forth his own, distinct plan, no doubt building on Ryan’s — and we will see what that is, whether it strengthens or weakens Ryan’s approach.

Categories
ideological culture

Thinly Veiled

Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan famously elicited from the president a bizarre accusation about “social Darwinism.” Now Georgetown University’s faculty and priests warn that his “spending blueprint would hurt society’s most vulnerable.”

Ryan undoubtedly laughed off the Darwinism charge, but Georgetown U. is Catholic, and so is Ryan, making his response especially interesting:

“I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly of sorts, not exactly on heaven, but on the social teaching of our Church,” Mr Ryan said, adding: “There can be differences among faithful Catholics on this.”

He also argued that a “preferential option for the poor,” a tenet of Catholic teaching, means that people should not become “dependent on the government so they stay stuck at their station in life.”

The latter point is especially telling, for upward social mobility is surely a prime goal of all who are truly concerned about improving the lot of the less well-off.Herbert Spencer at age 78

Interestingly, social mobility and improvement via voluntary co-​operation were also major concerns of the two 19th century liberals who have since been labelled the Social Darwinists Nos. 1 and 2: Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. But then, careless charges regarding “social Darwinism” have never had much intellectual substance, and are, almost certainly, irrelevant to Ryan’s actually quite modest plan, which spends 50 percent more than Clinton’s 2000 budget. This fact led Reason’s Nick Gillespie to quip, “If that’s what passes for ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ … the English language is as broke as the federal treasury.”

I think that’s pretty clear, at this point.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Very Lame Duck

A Washington Post feature story on Kent Conrad refers to the retiring U.S. Senator as “the Democrats’ balanced-​budget guy for more than a decade.”

Of course, no budget has been balanced for “more than a decade.” Being the Democrats’ “balanced-​budget guy” is sorta like being the Taliban’s diversity outreach guy or AARP’s youth activities director or the bartender for the Temperance League.

I won’t dispute Sen. Conrad’s claim that he’s “done [his] level best,” but, in the time he’s been in Congress, the federal debt has climbed more than 700 percent, from $2.1 trillion in 1986 to $15.4 trillion today.

Nonetheless, Conrad continues to work his colleagues in the dark corridors of the capitol, and The Post reports his goal is to “draft far-​reaching legislation to tame the debt and present it for a vote after Election Day, when lawmakers will be under intense pressure to reach an agreement to avert huge tax increases and deep spending cuts set to hit Jan. 1.”

But how will the desire to avoid tax increases and spending cuts “pressure” Congress to pass Conrad’s preferred package of tax increases and spending cuts? Especially in a lame duck session that sidesteps public pressure?

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan offers a different view: “We shouldn’t be insulating this from the American public, trying to cut back room deals on commissions or whatever. I think the process is moved forward if we put plans out for the public to see and defend our ideas.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies responsibility too much government

The Trademark of Irresponsible Politicians

Who doesn’t agree with President Obama? “We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don’t have consequences,” he said when introducing his budget in February.

But who believes he’s serious? He went on to say that we must not treat “the hard-​earned tax money of the American people … like Monopoly money.” Yet, by spending at hyper-​deficit levels and offering no reasonable plan to balance the budget, he demonstrates a preference to play Monopoly™, not Responsibility®.

Now, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has a plan. He spelled it out Tuesday, giving it a hopeful moniker, “The Path to Prosperity.”

“Prosperity’s Around the Corner” was already taken in the noösphere.

The most salient feature of the plan, though, is that it designed to take its own sweet time. The budget wouldn’t balance next year. Or the year after. Or even in five, like Sen. Rand Paul’s much better plan. 

Besides, today’s Congress can’t control itself must less control future Congresses. That’s the trouble with all these procrastinating plans.

Remember, even Rand Paul thinks his plan takes too long and doesn’t go far enough.

Of course, Obama dislikes Ryan’s plan. The new White House press secretary offers, “The President believes there is a more balanced way to put America on a path to prosperity.”

But he won’t share it with us. Obama and congressional Democrats are playing the oldest game in the book: All talk but no responsibility.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Republicans Still Not Serious

Picnicking on railroad tracks? Not dangerous. Most of the time the tracks are free. Take out the picnic basket and pass the chips. Glug down a few drinks. 

The tracks are safe when there’s no train. 

After the train? Well, you’re dead. Not dangerous then, either.

Only in the moments while the train blares down on you is it actually dangerous.

This is modern politics. Our politicians have set us to party on the tracks, heedless of dangers. Increasing deficits? Mounting debt? Those are future problems!

That’s what politicians have been saying, in effect, for decades.

Irresponsible? Yes. So what else is new?

Republicans are lambasting Democrats for not taking deficits and debt seriously. But how serious are Republicans, really? Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has put forward what he calls a “road map” to solvency. He’s taking into consideration “entitlement” as well as “discretionary” spending; he’s elaborated a set of spending cuts, program cuts, as well as a tax abolition and a new business consumption tax that all together zero out the deficit and balance the budget … by 2063. 

So, have Republicans jumped onto his cause? No. They are, with the exception of nine co-​sponsors, avoiding him as if he were the onrushing train.

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute calls Ryan’s Roadmap “a test” and says, “right now the Republican Party is failing it.” 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.