Whatever else may be said about this week’s Gingrich contortions, one thing is clear: Paul Ryan and the House Republican budget have the strong support of an exceptionally broad array of conservatives—from the DC establishment to the talk radio world to the grass roots and the Tea Party. Given the fact that Ryan’s budget deals squarely and seriously with our fiscal challenges (and with the challenge of creating the preconditions for growth) but also contains some provisions that will require a major educational effort with voters, this speaks well of the seriousness of conservatives at the moment. There is hard work ahead, but there also seems to be an unusual degree of consensus about what that work should consist of.
All contenders for the Republican nomination should take note.
If other Republicans — from the Senate, or from state governors' mansions or the campaign trail — come up with something as specific as the Path to Prosperity, and they put it on the table and make the argument that this aspect or that one is better than its counterpart in the Path to Prosperity, that would be fine.
Unless and until you have something more than hot air of your own, though -- and that's ALL that Newt has on this, shamefully so -- no Republican should be throwing brickbats at the Ryan plan, nor its author and most effective spokesman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis may not be the ideal thread for a "Draft Ryan" post, but so be it.
There are some pretty obvious flaws in a Ryan candidacy: he's young, he lacks executive and much foreign policy experience, he would be the first House member since Garfield to win the White House (though more on this later), and his candidacy would really bet the party's chances on the Path to Prosperity (more on this later too), as well as open us up to hypocrisy charges from the left given "lack of experience" criticisms we made against Obama.
So, granted right from the start, Ryan is not a perfect candidate for this election. But just as pollsters should really be asking Americans to rate Ryan's Medicare plan not in the abstract, but against the other plausible option - IPAB - we need to be asking whether there are any superior plausible alternatives to Paul Ryan right now. Who, if anyone, would be better than Ryan? I'll admit some who might, were they to run, be at least equally as good: Christie, Jeb Bush (maybe; being W.'s brother in 2012 would be more of a liability than it would be in 2016 or 2020), and Rick Perry. But despite some good news today that Perry may be reconsidering running (and by all means, Rick Perry, please run!), I'd say that the other two are even less likely than Ryan is to get in. And although I like Mitch Daniels more than I do all the other plausible candidates, I would not include him in this category with Christie, Bush, and Perry.
On Ryan's House membership: surely the main reason House members don't normally run or win is because they generally lack a national profile and national importance. But Ryan clearly has those things right now (either that, or I'm just too steeped in the conservative blogworld).
On whether the fact that Ryan's running would harmfully wed the party to the Path to Prosperity - aren't we already fairly wedded to it? And, given that, will there be any better spokesman to proselytize on its behalf than Ryan himself?
All this, of course, is aside from Ryan's reluctance to run. No one can begrudge him for not wanting to run for the reasons he's offered (though I can think of at least one young, charismatic, Catholic president who entered the White House with small children). But Ryan knows at least as well as we do how important this election is. What Republican who is likely to run has a better chance than he does?
I fully accept that I may be mistaken here. I just want to see the case made that some plausible candidate is superior to Paul Ryan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSpeaking of educating the populace, might I suggest the following to the RNC?
#1 All know that Paul Ryan is excellent at presenting The Path and making believers out of people on the fence.
#2 The RNC and PAC's with unlimited ability to buy air time should have Ryan tape 60 second ad's outlining the problems and the solutions offered therein.
#3 Ad's should be targeted to the normal American's that don't watch 24 hour news and listen to talk radio like we do. Non political junkies watch the local news, Wheel of Fortune, etc.
#4 On the Medicare angle: Ryan needs to stress that when the change occurs people will be provided enough to get on one of a variety of really good plans that will have the effect of actually lowering medical costs. The term "premium support" that has been used is not the best term. Folks scared that they're going to be cut off from medical care in old age, because they don't have enough premium money, get the wrong idea with that term.
#5 Instead, emphasis needs to be on the fact they are going to get an average of, say $15,000 per year and that instead of the government paying doctors and hospitals directly THEY will get to buy the plan they like best and this will remove the incentive for doctors and hospitals to constantly jack up prices because now they will compete for the business of the great plans that will be available with all they money those seniors will be able to pool with them.
I think most conservatives know that NO ONE sells this plan as good as Chairman Ryan. NOW is the time to have him all over the airwaves so the average Joe hears what this plan is all about directly from him. The alternative is to let Democrats & ill informed candidates demagogue the plan.
With a plan this big, this complicated, yet this necessary, the resources to educate the public MUST BE BROUGHT TO THE FIGHT.
The House GOP has staked their career's and honor on this. If we want our elected represntatives to make bold stands for fiscal sanity, we've got to back them to the hilt when they take such risks!
Conservatives with the means, need to do all in their power to see to it that the public gets the facts.
Don't let that principled vote by a near unanimous House be used by the leftists to shut down any possibility of getting our financial house in order.
We live in the best country on Earth, but it's not guaranteed to survive forever. The one thing that can grind the Republic into dust is bad finances and bad monetary policy. The public must come to grips with that, then presented with The Path away from it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm glad they put down specifics...it will be easy to tar them with the "death panel" label by the dems. And the risky scheme label. People don't want change they want low taxes and infinite spending. And people who say they can't have it are going to lose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe "national conversation" centers around Paul Ryan's plan. Whether it's Gingrich or Obama, all opponents are focused on Ryan; and Ryan is the only leader zeroing in on the major problem, the out-of-control entitlements. Yuval is certainly correct that Ryan's budget "will require major educational effort with voters." It behooves us to urge the Congressman to run for the Presidency so the man who most obviously knows the subject and who can most clearly make the persuasive case for dealing "squarely and seriously with our fiscal challenges" is the candidate debating Obama in 2012. Anyone here believe that the Dems and their minions in the press want Ryan as the GOP nominee? They can demagogue his plan all they want, but if Ryan is the candidate debating ideas and plans with Obama, Ryan will be heard. The public will see the stark difference between a party that is not serious about addressing our financial problems and one that is. This is an opportunity that Ryan might as well grasp right now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Given the fact that Ryan’s budget deals squarely and seriously with our fiscal challenges (and with the challenge of creating the preconditions for growth)"
Ryan's budget adds up okay, sort of, but I disagree that it's creating conditions for growth. It doesn't take into account the severe economic plunge that will occur from eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, the real estate and state income tax deductions. The changes in how real estate is treated will be enormously destructive of personally held wealth, home value. More gravely, Ryan appears to buy into the leftist notion of "tax expenditures," an Orwellian little term that describes any money left in taxpayer hands after April 15th as money that the government allows revenue sources....er, I mean people, to keep. Buy this rhetoric and you may win the battle to get the Ryan budget enacted, but you're going to lose the long term argument over what the proper level of taxation is. And yeah, I got skin in the game, these changes are going to screw me up, it's going to represent a huge tax hike on a fairly modest household income, pretty much knock us to the bottom tier of the middle class. Ryan and the Democrats both appear interested in punishing the middle class. I wonder what it is we ever did to them...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom what I understand, Ryan has often voted with the dems for the stimulus and other things. I like that he is offering some ideas, but don't count Toomey's plan out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt least Toomey is talking about a short term plan to bring the budget into balance. It is more helpful than talking about 20 year plans.
In fact the 2012 ticket I like at the moment is Palin/Toomey.
Paul Ryan is not running for President this cycle. Know this about him...when he says something, he means it. Ryan is an honest man and a straight shooter.
Look how quickly he decided against a WI Senate Run for a seat he would have won in a walk.
With Paul Ryan, what you see is what you get. And you will not get him to run for the White House this time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jim: You say "The changes in how real estate is treated [in the Path to Prosperity] will be enormously destructive of personally held wealth, home value."
What you MEAN is, you (and many others) will lose an artificial government subsidy for home-owners that we can no longer afford. And your ox is not the only one being gored: Everyone losing a loophole will feel similar concerns.
Here's what the Path to Prosperity actually says (at page 53) about that subject:
"The negative effects of high rates on work, savings and investment are compounded when a large mix of exemptions, deductions and credits are added in. Sometimes referred to as “tax expenditures,” these distortions are similar to government spending – instead of markets directing economic resources to their most efficient uses, the government directs resources to politically favored uses, creating a drag on growth.
"The key difference is that, with spending, the government collects the money first in the form of taxes from those who earned it, and reallocates the money elsewhere. With tax expenditures, government agrees not to collect the money as long as it is put to a government-approved use. Other tax expenditures literally do take the form of spending through the tax code, because they “return” more money than the taxes owed.
"Tax expenditures have a huge impact on the federal budget, resulting in over $1 trillion in forgone revenue each year (although the exact definition of a “tax expenditure” is subject to debate.) To put that number in perspective, $1 trillion is roughly the total amount the government collects each year in federal income taxes."
So your long-term comfort is that everyone will do better in a system not burdened by these preferences and loopholes.
There IS a fair point to be made that your existing arrangements were all made in reliance -- really, no more than an assumption -- that the favorable tax treatment for home owners would be preserved indefinitely. One could question the reasonableness of that assertion: All it has going for it is the length of time that the present law, with those deductions, has been in place, rather than any direct promise that things would always stay this way. No one has ever promised that this would last forever, and no one could have promised that, and you'd have been a fool to believe it if they had.
Nevertheless, elimination of these deductions should be made only gradually and over a number of years. I think I've read that such is the plan already, but I confess to not being able to find anything on that exact point in my very quick googling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAha -- I stopped googling too soon. Here's what Ryan himself says:
"Q: Won’t this budget hurt homeowners and charitable giving by removing the mortgage interest and charitable contribution tax deductions?
A: The Path to Prosperity does not specify assumptions about these two deductions. This budget simply calls for tax reform that will promote desperately needed economic growth and job creation."
"With regard to specifics on tax reform, The Path to Prosperity assumes that the top tax rate for individuals and corporations does not exceed 25 percent. This will provide job creators with a top tax rate that is competitive with our global competitors and with the certainty needed to create jobs."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Dixon: You're right that Ryan is a man of his word. But his denials of interest in the presidency haven't quite been Shermanesque -- they've been less emphatic than, for example, Chris Christie's.
How many presidential candidates have ever actually suffered for changing their minds after previously expressing an unwillingness to run? Zero. This is the most forgivable of broken political promises.
Those of us who want to see Ryan drafted into a presidential run put a different interpretation on his statements about the possible Senate run for the seat Kohl's retiring from.
That he considered it at all shows he's not wedded to sticking to his House seat no matter what.
That he so quickly ruled it out, however, is consistent with him wanting to leave open the possibility that he might be persuaded to run for president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Jim: You wrote, "More gravely, Ryan appears to buy into the leftist notion of "tax expenditures," an Orwellian little term that describes any money left in taxpayer hands after April 15th as money that the government allows revenue sources....er, I mean people, to keep."
You've gotten it exactly wrong. Ryan recognizes that tax loopholes DO cost the government revenue. But he's opposed to the idea of presuming that your money belongs to the government in the first place. That's why he wants to simplify the tax code, moving to lower rates but more comprehensive (and less refund- and credit-riddled) collection.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Jim: Put another way, what you're actually objecting to isn't the concept of "tax expenditures." You're objecting to the premise behind the Dem's arguments -- that everything presumptively belongs to the government -- when they use that term.
Ryan, like you and me, objects to that premise.
The fact that the Dems use that dishonest premise to argue dishonestly about tax deductions and credits can't be permitted to paralyze us. It's no reason NOT to tackle tax reform that dramatically reduces complexity (in part by eliminating many of those deductions and credits over time).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse