Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Ryan: GOP Won’t “Rubber Stamp” a Debt Increase

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) discussed budget issues (spending cuts v. tax increases) and the upcoming vote to increase the debt limit with Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”

On raising the debt ceiling:

Nobody wants to play around with the country’s credit rating, nobody wants to see default happening, but we also think it’s important to get a handle on future borrowing as we deal with raising the debt limit. So nobody’s saying we want to see default, we just want to get some cuts and controls on spending going forward, and that is what we have been telling the White House.

On President Obama’s criticism of Ryan and his budget:

In divided government, I think it helps if we treat each other with respect, there’s plenty of time for campaigning, look the president doesn’t have a primary opponent, he doesn’t even have an announced Republican opponent yet, there’s plenty of time for him to do campaigning later. Right now we’ve got things to do we’ve got problems to solve and so I think it would just be more productive if we put the campaign rhetoric aside…Both parties have done this to each other, I’m not saying only one party does this but I think the tone gets set at the top…

On the leadership vacuum in Washington:

[Obama] appointed a fiscal commission last year to come up with solutions, they came up with solutions, he disavowed their solutions, and now he’s coming up with yet another commission to come up with solutions. My point is we need to lead and we shouldn’t be delegating these tough decision to other people to make…We’re going to lead, we’re putting ideas out there, and we’re not going to kicking it to other people to make decisions like other commissions…

On “cutting taxes on the wealthy”:

“First of all, we’re not talking about cutting taxes, we’re just not agreeing with the president’s tax increases. I guess that’s the new definition of tax cuts. We’re saying keep tax rates where they are right now and get rid of all those loopholes and deductions, which by the way are mostly enjoyed by wealthy people, so you can lower tax rates. We’re basically taking a page out of the playbook of the fiscal commission. The president’s fiscal commission, supported by a majority of Democrats, said the same thing: Broaden the tax base, lower the tax rates for economic growth — a simpler, flatter, fairer tax code, more internationally competitive so we can create jobs. That’s what we’re proposing. This is isn’t tax cuts, it’s tax reform targeting our revenues at where they are right now. We’re just not signing on to all the tax increases that the president’s proposing.”

On why raising taxes wouldn’t solve our debt problem:

If you have really high tax rates what you end up doing is you penalize small businesses. What you have to remember Bob, most successful small businesses file their taxes as individuals. Most of our jobs come from these small businesses. The president is proposing to raise the top tax rate on these small businesses to 44.8 percent. We don’t think that’s good for jobs, we don’t think that’s good for economic growth, and when we tax our employers a whole lot more than our foreign competitors tax theirs, we lose, they win, and we don’t want that.

Two things, number one: We don’t have a tax problem. Our revenues are going back to where they have been historically. We have a big spending problem…The president’s proposing $1.5 trillion in tax increases, the Democrats in congress are proposing anywhere from $2-16 trillion in tax increases based on the three budgets they brought to the floor the other day…Here’s what we’re trying to get: Spending cuts and controls to get spending under control — because that’s the problem — and economic growth and job creation. We don’t want to give up one to get the other.”

On Medicare reform:

No change would occur to anybody 55 years of age or above. The problem is Medicare goes bankrupt in nine years, and unless we do something to save it, it won’t be there for future generations like my generation. And the ideas we’re talking about for reforming Medicare is a system that works just like the one that I have as a member of congress that federal employees have. It works like the prescription drug benefit works now for seniors, which is proven to lower costs and expand choices…

The president had one idea he gave us on Wednesday, which is have this board of 15 people that he appoints ration and price control Medicare for current seniors. So we just don’t think government rationing on Medicare is the answer.

On conditions for raising the debt limit:

There are many different ways of putting caps on spending. The budget we propose has three different kinds of caps on spending — caps on what we call discretionary spending in law, those have worked, Republicans turned them off in the 1990s, they were successful we should go back down that path again; global caps on total government spending; there’s deficit caps, debt caps, there’s lot of different ways of controlling spending and we also think we need to lock in the gains that were achieved in the continuing resolution and get some spending cuts there and carry those savings on into the future so we can actually save money.

On what happens if a there’s no deal by the administration’s May 16 “deadline”:

There are things Treasury can do to get more time, but I sort of reject the premise of the question, which is: We should just ignore the spending problem and just keep raising the debt. Look, we shouldn’t ignore the spending problem, it is why we have this debt problem in the first place. So we need to work together to get spending under control while we deal with this debt. The reason the debt ceiling’s being hit is because spending has been going on unchecked in the past. We want to make sure we deal with this in the future. And so I don’t accept the premise that we just can’t get spending under control around Washington. If that’s true, than we’re going to have a debt crisis.

We won’t just simply raise the debt limit. We will vote to have spending cuts and controls in conjunction with a debt limit increase. I don’t see May 16 as a hard, fast deadline. I think Tim Geithner would probably agree with that. He and I have talked about this. But the key is we shouldn’t just accept the premise that we have to rubber stamp a debt increase without any spending controls. I don’t agree with and I think a lot of Democrats agree on this.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   16

EXPAND  

MarkJ
   04/17/11 14:40

I'd say "Ryan for President," but I suspect Paul Ryan is exactly where he wants to be right now and in the future. Hey, why would Ryan want to give up the best job in the solar system, take a demotion, and move to the White House? ;)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 15:07

I never realized that CBS imposed an IQ ceiling on the commentators for its shows. What do you think it is, 90?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 15:27

I listened to this clip as an audio, without the visual "Face the Nation" background and CBS's chyron indentifying Schieffer. I would have bet anything it was a White House Democrat opeerative debating Ryan. A clip such as this is prime evidence of why people believe the MSM is biased and no longer pay any attention to it.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 15:32

What a superb string of paragraphs.

Proud to be in his corner.

Since I stopped listening to Bob Schieffer a long time ago, I didn't watch the video clip. Does "commentator" in the preceding comment refers to Schieffer or Ryan? Are you referring to "host" or "guest" as having an IQ of 90. Egad!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 15:59

While everyone talks leadership, Ryan leads. Amazing. The fact that he can communicate what is arguably the most difficult thing about government to communicate speaks volumes about his capacity to lead. Okay, so...2012 Ryan/Bolton? or Ryan/Rubio?? Ryan does not polarize and it seems to me that he is growing into the Great Communicator II. With a little help, 'splainin' foreign policy would be a cakewalk.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bonnies
   04/17/11 16:27

Paul Ryan is the future of the GOP--if the GOP is wise enough to follow his lead.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 16:32

I would rather see Bolton/Ryan then you have it all covered. Bolton would blow Obama's ears off with anything dealing with foreign policy, or anyone else for that matter. Regarding fiscal, every time anyone asked him about it he could just say I have Ryan, what's yours?

Those two truly would be the dream team for me if I could only find a Genie.

Ryan would be a VP, not PROTUS, not yet anyway. I say whoever out there that has a brain should put him as their VP and that his primary job is the economy. Let the PROTUS deal with the other issues.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 16:36

Oh, and one other thing.

With Bolton as PROTUS, that would put a quick end to all of the Middle East games as everyone there would take a nice long snooze with him as PROTUS as they know his position on everything, he wouldn't have to educate any allies or foes, everyone knows exactly what they are dealing with from the get go.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 16:46

in answer to Watertight 'host'

Sloppy use of word on my part.

In my defense, I didn't think anyone would have any problem figuring out who to low IQ guy was.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 17:17

"Both parties have done this to each other, I’m not saying only one party does this but I think the tone gets set at the top..."

Wrong message. Both parties haven't done this to each other. This is a Democrat problem, overwhelmingly, and an Obama problem, quite particularly. Ryan needs to show more backbone than this.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 18:24

RE: debt limit/government shutdown

As a crude cut, the federal government is borrowing ~45% of what it spends. That means ~55% is not borrowed, i.e. it comes from tax and other revenue collections.

What that means is that if the debt limit is not increased, government "spending activity" need be cut by ~45%, not by 100%.

Which is to say, it becomes truly pay-as-you-go based solely on actual revenues, with spending prioritized so the most important stuff fits within those revenues.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 18:36

Shame on McSweeney - it isn't nice to comment on Schieffer's IQ. Regardless of him being a left wing parrot, he really is a good ol' boy. He reads his talking points, errr questions, very well :>)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Dennis E. Logue Jr.
   04/17/11 18:42

I saw Chris Van Hollen on Fox today. We keep getting the same talking point on how Seniors will have to pay 6K out of pocket in 10 years on average. What was missed by Chris Wallace was that this is an average. Low income folks would face much less out of pocket than the well-to-do. This of course makes Medicare an even worse deal for those who have saved diligently because they've paid medicare taxes on their whole income and unlike SS they've never been in-line to get better benefits based on their extra contribution. However from a standpoint of "fairness" as defined by the left, the Ryan Medicare plan is far more redistributionist than the current system. I saw Paul Ryan tackle this a bit in some talk or other, I'm not sure it fully fits into the larger GOP message, but in terms of blunting the Democrats arguing for taxing the rich more, this argument certainly is a strong response, namely that under Medicare vouchers we are.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 18:49

This is so stupid. As the LA Times said, Paul Ryan's budget requires an increase of the debt ceiling. Why, oh why, didn't the GOP put the debt limit increase into the same bill as the Paul Ryan budget? You want a debt limit increase? Pass the budget!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/17/11 20:40

No matter how many times it's pointed out that the "wealthy" who are going to receive tax breaks include thousands of small businesses, and that the tax breaks are trade-offs for closing loopholes, Schieffer, like so many others with talking points instead of journalistic chops, go back to parroting, "Tax cuts for the rich! Tax cuts for the rich! Squawk!"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   04/18/11 04:46

Paul may be the greatest financial genius since Dagny Taggart. But if he ain't right on immigration, he ain't right for America. I need some serious reassurance. (John Bolton, who would be a kick-butt VP or Secretary of State, does nothing to shore up Ryan on immigration and other non-fiscal, non-foreign, conservative concerns.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact