Democrat Déjà Vu on Obamacare

In case you've forgotten the ad...

Phony Budget Compromise is Selling us A Bill of Goods

Obama's not the only one putting lipstick on this pig!
In my callow youth, I can remember various Congresses putting forth their "budget solutions". In fact, most of them had some great five and ten year plans, which, admittedly were heavy on spending on the front end, but boy do those savings kick in at the rear of the plan! And then, the next Congress, which was not bound by anything in the previous one, would come up with their own ten year plan, which, admittedly were heavy on spending on the front end, but boy do those savings kick in at the rear! After having been kicked in the rear by Congress after Congress, who were serious about spending but not serious about saving, we stand on the edge of a fiscal cliff. Some would say we've already gone over and there's no hope of return. Hope springs eternal.

Which brings us to the latest ten year program to deal with fiscal responsibility. I must admit that when I first heard there was a budget compromise sponsored by Paul Ryan and the ditsy Democrat Patty Murray, I figured it was a 50/50 split between the Onion and Saturday Night Live. It was neither. The more we learned about it, the more it became apparent that this was a compromise among politicians, for politicians. What is best for the country was not on the table.

America is deeply in debt. Congress spends more money than it takes in and spends more money each year than it did the year before. This cannot go on. The so called "compromise" includes tax increases, with virtually no real spending cuts, lifts many of the restrictions placed upon spending by the sequester, and the only thing the Republicans seemed to have garnered in their compromise, is a promise from the Democrats not to shut down the government and blame them again. Oh, and five magic beans*!

In Paul and Patty's Playhouse, the closest thing to a real cut is the outrageous cut in pension benefits to wounded and disabled veterans. Not a single penny is cut from pensions of civil servants, or Congress or congressional staffers anywhere, but it was decided that the pensions promised to our veterans was a cash cow that could be milked to free up funds for other, more worthy projects, no doubt. Yeah, right!

But, unlike the last bit of brinksmanship, which focused on Obamacare, Republicans could have left Obamacare out of the discussion altogether and simly focused on spending. This was an opportunity to once again acquaint the public with the deceitfulness of baseline budgeting. Nancy Pelosi (D-Botox) made the remark "There's nothing left to cut". This delusional fantasy could be contrasted against any number of thousands of wasteful expenditures made by the government every day. (Dr. John over at Flopping Aces listed a few)

The only way to reduce the debt and the deficit is to stop spending more than you take in and make some real cuts. Obama likes to say that he cut the deficit in half, but he only talks about cuts in the rate of increase. The budget grows more ever year, trillions more than George W. Bush spent (and he spent too much!) It's not like there's no waste, or fraud or inefficiency in federal spending that couldn't be cut. Candidate Obama assured us that there was, in 2008, and promised to go through the budget line by line to get rid of it. If only we had elected that guy!

We currently borrow from the Chinese, something like forty cents on the dollar of everything we spend. A simple budget freeze would mean that we at least don't spend more money than we did the year before. Given inflation, this might mean a three percent decrease in real spending power. Who among us, if faced with a budget shortfall could not reduce our own personal or family budget three percent? Which real conservative could not explain this in understandable terms to anyone who would listen?

Others have suggested the "Penny Plan": Cut one penny off every dollar of public spending.

The 1 percent cut would last two years, followed by a cap on total annual spending — equal to roughly 19 percent of GDP. Supporters say it also will cut spending over roughly 10 years by about $5.8 trillion, based on currently projected levels.

In a few weeks, there will come another vote on the debt ceiling, which the Republicans have pretty much indicated that they will cave to the big spending Democrats, so as to avoid (the blame for) another nasty government shut down. They may even believe that this is a good tactical move, to position themselves for wins in 2014 without having to explain to the MSM why they are letting little girls die without cancer treatments just to give their fat cat, one percent buddies another tax break.

But, if they won't stand upon principle now, but are willing to allow the country to slip deeper and deeper in debt for the next two years, while doing nothing about it but robbing disabled veterans, why should we believe that electing them in 2014 will do anything but make the Republican party the party of domestic appeasement yet again?

There were 12 Republicans who voted to end the discussion, including Lamar Alexander-TN, Jeff Flake -AZ, and Roy Blunt -MO. These nine voted for the final bill:

Ron Johnson - WI, Orin Hatch - UT, Saxby Chamblis - GA, John McCain - AZ, Susan Collins - MA, John Hoeven - ND, Johnny Isakson - GA, Lisa Murkowski - AL,
and Rob Portman - OH

If any of these turkeys are your senator, see what you can do to get them primaried out. Grill your candidates about what they propose to do about reducing federal spending. Don't accept platitudes or generalities. If they have a record, see how they have voted on such things in the past.

Throw John McCain a retirement party. Make it a big one!

Be prepared to give of your time, your talent and your treasure to preserve our great Republic. God save the United States.


*We should be so lucky to have negotiators who could get magic beans in return for their concessions!

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art
Cross posted at LCR

"This Plant Will Be Here For Another Hundred Years"

-Barack H. Obama, GM Assembly Plant, Janesville, WI, February 13, 2008.

So, then, all those people who said that Paul Ryan was lying, were...lying? Let's be charitable and just say they haven't the slightest idea what they are talking about!

Note what else Obama said: "If our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need..." I guess the Obama administration either wasn't there for them, didn't know how to do it or didn't care. Or just maybe, did he just not have the slightest notion what he was talking about? Anyway, the results are the same!

Cross posted at Say Anything

Paul Ryan's Speech at the Republican Convention

In case you missed it, you missed a great speech...


"Without a change in leadership how would the next four years be any different than the last four years?"

Romney and Ryan on Sixty Minutes (video)

For those of you otherwise engaged...

New Romney Ryan Ad

Ryan certainly brings a new dynamic to the race! This is a great ad!

H/T Tammy Bruce

Uncork Some More Fine Democrat Whine...

And while we're on the topic of faux outrage from the bloviating Left, this gem from Ann Althouse about the Paul Ryan wine kerfluffle:

The new oppo research: Spotting the labels on the wine on the politician's restaurant table.
Some busybody business professor named Susan Feinberg pulled this trick on Paul Ryan and Talking Points Memo is lapping it up:

When [Professor Feinberg] saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan's table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same pricetag.

Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle....

"We were just stunned," said Feinberg...

She was outraged....

So, Feinberg was appalled, stunned, and outraged. That's got to hurt.

[Feinberg] approached the table and asked Ryan "how he could live with himself" sipping expensive wine while advocating for cuts to programs for seniors and the poor. Some verbal jousting between Feinberg and the other two men ensued. One of the two men said he had ordered the wine, was drinking it and paying for it. In hearing how much the wine cost, Ryan said only: "Is that how much it was?"

Just recently:

Royal family, President Barack Obama & First Lady Michelle Obama dine on Echezeaux Grand Cru 1990 wine, which retails in U.S. for $1,000 to $1,700.

So, all the outrage is about Ryan drinking cheap wine???

Any takers on finding the outrage expressed by Professor Feinberg over Obama's expensive taste in wine or by Greg Sargent on Democrats' "sleazy dirty tricks" in the last election?

It's probably in the produce aisle, between the magic beans and the unicorn steaks.

H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

More on Paul Ryan

by the Left Coast Rebel

Anyone that reads my thoughts on a regular basis knows that I am a big fan of Representative Paul Ryan. If you are not familiar with Ryan, please go here for "A Roadmap for America's Future."

Earlier this week Wesley Messamore at the Humble Libertarian noted an awesome exchange between Paul Ryan and statist-MSNBC'er Chris Matthews, writing:

THIS is how to talk to statist progressives like Chris Matthews. Congressman Paul Ryan stands up to Matthews and explains how new taxes hurt economic growth (and even government tax revenues, à la Art Laffer); why ending Bush's tax cuts would hurt small businesses and their workers- not "the wealthy;" and says exactly what he would cut out of the budget to fix America's unsustainable deficit- if only the obstructionist Democrats would allow it.

After watching the video below, read the summary that follows so you can learn how to better advocate for lower taxes, less spending, and fiscal responsibility.

Wesley has been interning at YAL this summer and told me recently that he has learned an incredible amount about effective activism for the pro-liberty cause. On that note, Wesley Messamore highlights several points about Paul Ryan's approach that are quite effective and concludes that:

Another key take-away is Ryan's demeanor. Notice how he smiles, speaks calmly and clearly, and uses simple facts. He's very polite and obviously very intelligent. This is how you defend liberty to its skeptics. Without being aggressive or ugly, he uses simple and true facts to spectacular effect. Without being impolite, the strength of his case made Chris Matthews look like an idiot. And ultimately- when the facts are on the table, statism always looks idiotic.

Wesley's writeup is a MUST READ for activists and hints at a new approach for essentially 'arguing with idiots' that rein in the so-called progressive movement/power structure today.
I can speak for myself in that I tend to become worked up and agitated when confronting progressive-statists and their ludicrous agenda talking points.

Wes' advice is solid - keep your cool, stick to the facts and ultimately from that vantage point, statism will always look idiotic, even to the politically uninitiated.

Updated: Well shiver me timbers - even old Andrew 'Sullie' Sullivan is a fan of Paul Ryan, "The Republican who Gives me Hope" :

If the GOP wins the House, as I assume they will, Ryan really will become a critical figure, it seems to me. He'll be the Chairman of the Budget Committee - and one of six members of the president's Debt Commission. If he can resist the enormous partisan pressure against bipartisan compromise and intellectual honesty, he will be the unlikely hinge in one of the most critical moments in American economic and fiscal history.

I agree, especially in bold.

Cross posted to LCR, Rational Nation.