Republicans Still Not Serious

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

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.

8 Comments so far ↓

  1. Mar
    9
    11:45
    AM
    Drik

    Representative Ryan will either be swinging from the corner light pole,

    or the next president.

  2. Mar
    9
    12:49
    PM
    FeedFwd

    Who are the 9 co-sponsors? Are there any Republicans who have explained why they are not supporting this? There are usually 2 sides to the story and while I have been impressed with Paul Ryan, I would consider conservative or libertarian based complaints about the specifics of Rep Ryan’s “road map”. Failing that we can all see how committed Republican Congress critters are to limiting government at the Federal level, which is generally not much.

  3. Mar
    9
    1:26
    PM
    Shelley

    Seriously…2063.
    I want this done before I am dead and gone and I still have dependants on my taxes!

  4. Mar
    9
    3:07
    PM
    lanczos

    And doubtless the Wimpublican “Congressional leadership” are all slapping each other on the back, and loudly assuring each other how wise and principled and “compassionate” they are…

  5. Mar
    9
    4:27
    PM
    Charlie81

    Balance the budget by 2063? I say balance the budget NOW! If all we can do is fund defense and pay the interest on the debt that’s what we must do. Our politicians have bought votes with borrowed money and now we must pay the piper.
    BALANCE THE BUDGET IN 2011!!

  6. Mar
    9
    5:18
    PM
    Mary Bodily

    Although comparing the National Debt to my household debt is not realistic (because I have almost no debt) however, I know how I arrived at the point in which we have no debt. Cut the frills, no credit cards, pay the bills, and don’t let the kids talk me into extras. Now, if we translated to the National Debt, though we cannot get out of debt in one year, (neither did we) I know we can make tremendous progress and have a sound financial system. It will take EVERYONE working on cutting back to do it.

  7. Mar
    9
    7:40
    PM
    Joel

    The problem with the Republicvans is, when they controlled the WH & Congress, they ( with a great assist from Tom DeLay) gave the goodies to THEIR friends. THEY HAD THE PORK. (Remember Duke Cunningham-who put into Defense and similair bills contracts for his friends, who had no experience?) (True, he went to prison, after the fact. He also was suppsoed to have his price for services n the back of his Congressional card). The Dems. are doing the same-only bigger- and more frivolous. And screwing up the economy and country more.

    We need term limits and a clean sweep of all of these ———-.

    To paraphrase former Sen. George McGovern-if he had known how varius bbills that he voted for hurt businesses, he never would have voted for them. he made this comment after a business he had went bust. So, since we will never vote out incumbents-always the ‘other guy’s Senator (or Congressman) who is bad, not Mine’, how about, all elected (and beuracrats) have to live by the same rules as us mere mortals?

    My views

  8. Mar
    17
    9:45
    PM
    Richard Poor

    I am so sick and tired of hearing how wonderful Paul Ryan is amongst conservatives. I mean…REALLY??

    Paul Ryan does not have a clue on what a TRUE conservative really is. Unfortunately, many conservatives in the Republican Party today don’t as well. It is time to change the GOP and return it back to the party it once was!

    But first… Let me just point out a thing or two about the “Conservative” Paul Ryan…

    Let’s look at a few of his votes going back to the late 90s. We will see that when his party is doing the spending, raising debt limits, and acting unconstitutionally… it is okay! Republican dominated Congresses raised the debt limits at least five times in the Bush years. From $5.95 Trillion to nearly $10 Trillion in 2007.

    -Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
    -Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
    -Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    -Voted YES on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
    -Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
    -Voted YES on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
    -Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) – note he only wants reform, not exit from UN.
    -Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
    -Voted YES on Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr 2001)
    -Voted YES on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
    -Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
    -Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
    -Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)
    -Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
    -Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
    -Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
    -Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
    -Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
    -Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
    -Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
    -Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
    -Voted YES on TARP (2008)
    -Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
    -Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)
    -In 2007 liberty index he scored in
    the Enterpriser category, which is not very great. (He got a 56 out of 100 on social issues.)
    -In 2006, he scored in the Conservative category, also
    not good: 67 on economics and 66 on social issues.

    So he is for the UN, WTO, bailouts, federal involvement in education, unconstitutional wars, Medicare Part D (a multi trillion dollar unfunded liability), stimulus spending, foreign aid, CAFTA, and we are just getting started. And now, he wants to play brave and constitutional? Was it brave and indicative of his character that he went along from 1999-2008 as a liberal within the liberal GOP or the one year he has like a chameleon transformed himself seemingly into a constitutionalist? I think the previous ten years represents what he believes. Don’t tell me what he says, show me what he has done over and over and over. If you say he has turned a new leaf…I’ve got a great zebra story for you.

    He also agrees with Obama and most Dems, and some in the GOP, that the government has a right to interfere in health care. In fact his new Roadmap plan recently released (with so much fanfare from the GOP) even proposes a new national sales tax at 8.5%, flat tax rates of 10% and 25% on income, a system of wealth transferring tax credits, and implicitly agrees that Medicare, Social Security, and federal involvement in health care are the right thing to do.

    Before you do anything about health care, you must first ask yourself the question: Is this the federal government’s place? He answers just like Obama: Yes.

    Do they come up with different systems of wealth transfer, different taxes to impose, different strategies for implementing what they both propose – unconstitutional involvement in health care? Yes. But at the core, they come up with the same root answer on most everything.

    It’s easy to play constitutionalist with a villain in office and your party no longer commands the majority. Chameleon-like you become “conservative” until your party gets back to power. And then…

Spruce up your comments with
<a href="" title=""><abbr title=""><acronym title=""><b><blockquote cite=""><cite><code><del datetime=""><em><i><q cite=""><strike><strong>
New comments are moderated before being shown * = required field Be sure to answer the simple math problem below to help demonstrate that you are a human rather than a spambot.

Leave a Comment






4 + = ten

1 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Better Than Paul Ryan - OBAMA-B-GONE