Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) ventured over to our digs at the Heritage Foundation yesterday morning to deliver one of the most thoughtful and effective defenses that I have ever heard of our free-enterprise system and of what he calls the “American idea.”
The American idea, of course, refers to the American Dream: the notion that America is an exceptional nation where every American enjoys the opportunity to rise up and realize, through hard work and individual skill, his or her dreams.
Ryan devoted much of his speech to a relentless dissection of the president’s divisive class-warfare approach to governing. He turned the tables on this insidious view of the world and laid claim to the moral and economic high ground. “Throughout human history,” he emphasized, “the American idea has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed.”
A thoughtful man, Ryan clearly yearns for an intellectually honest debate that pits the philosophies of the two national parties against one another. Drop the cheap shots and the intellectual laziness. Concede that the other side, though perhaps misguided, genuinely believes that its solutions will work and is not carrying water for some evil special interest. Strive for a civil and elevating policy debate worthy of Bill Buckley’s Firing Line.
Ryan’s frustration on this point came through when he dismissed the president’s rhetoric as “petty.” Addressing Obama’s contention that Republicans favor “dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance,” he asked: “Can you think of a pettier way to describe sincere disagreements between the two parties on regulation and health care?” An honest debate conducted with civility, he feels, would advance the conservative cause because, at the end of the day, America is a right-of-center nation.
Although he didn’t put it this way, he also seemed to draw a distinction between the routes one takes to acquire his or her wealth. The legitimate route requires hard work, self-sacrifice, innovation, risk-taking, and the other virtues we associate with the Horatio Alger stories of upward mobility. Government needs to get out of the way of these successful entrepreneurs. But there is also a subset of the wealthy who took a tainted route to riches, one that triggers what he calls “the real class warfare that threatens us.” This consists, he argues, of “a class of bureaucrats and connected crony capitalists trying to rise above the rest of us, call the shots, rig the rules, and preserve their place atop society.” The solution? Conservatives must mount an assault on corporate welfare in all its forms (earmarked spending, special-interest provisions in the tax code, and regulatory provisions that reward winners and penalize losers) and end the universal nature of entitlements — i.e., stop sending Social Security and Medicare benefits to Warren Buffet and others who reasonably qualify as “rich.”
There is much more here to digest. Conservatives running for public office and those of you who find yourselves in endless ideological debates with the guy in the next cubicle or the cousin who still loves Obama would do well to read this speech closely. And repeatedly. It is, to coin a phrase, a rhetorical roadmap in defense of freedom.
Is there a link? The one that looks like a link is not working for me. Thanks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Throughout human history,” he emphasized, “the American idea has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed"
lol, like there was no such thing as capitalism before America was founded.
But apart from that, Ryan makes some good points.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere was the American style of capitalism practiced before our founding?
(THIS should be good.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess it all depends on what you define as the "American style of capitalism".
There definitely has been capitalism long before America declared independence. The Netherlands had a nice capitalistic society in the 1600's.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no wondering on that point. Ryan defined it in the first paragraph of his speech. Considering that's the basis for the topic, you might want to check it out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAny gutless republican who does not fully embrace what Ryan is saying and call the President and his minions out on this every day does not deserve to hold his office.
Vote out the gutless weasels.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems a little odd to me that only two ways of getting rich are mentioned. There is a third, very popular way: choose to be born rich. It's the easiest route, and as soon as we kill off the death tax and capital gains tax, easily the best, as a person born rich will never have to pay a dime to the taxman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy should they pay a dime on it. The person who earned that money already paid quite a few dimes on it.
If you think it is easy for the rich to stay rich, you are as delusional as your post makes you sound.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact is that with the exception of those families that also manage to run countries, has a family stayed rich for more than 3 or 4 generations.
Mark,
I assume you meant to say at the end of your comment that with limited exception no family has stayed rich for more than 3 or 4 generations.
What's your factual basis for this statement?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis argument ("The person that earned that money...") does not stand up to scrutiny. All the money I get in salary comes from customers who work for it and they too already paid taxes. Why is it taxed again when they give it to me? The question is, what are we taxing, people, work, or money? If it is money then just take the 30% off at the mint and leave us be (yes, I know they do that too through inflation,...) Without an estate tax we are taxing productive work while letting unproductive transfers go free. This seems unfair to most. The main tax goal is to tax income, and the main taxable unit is the person. Exempting familial wealth from tax is no different than hereditary titles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis formulation might work if the heirs were the ones who pay the estate tax, but they're not. The estate -- the legal remnants of the deceased -- pays it. So, the same person is being taxed twice for the same money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor the most part, the person is NOT being taxed twice.
Once an estate is given to the surviving family members, that is the only time that taxes are levied against wealth accrued through real estate, stocks, works of art, etc...
Read this article for more info:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Dude. Did you read what I said?
The estate pays the taxes before the "family members" get *anything*.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with this statement is a common premise among the left. The fact is, there is no such thing as an "unproductive" transfer, or (with the exception of somebody stuffing hard cash into their mattress) no such thing as unproductive capital whatsoever. The left purveys the misinformation that people with assets are somehow keeping those assets out of the economy, hoarding them for "the one percent". But the exact opposite is true. They are spending them on goods and services, or using them to create and build businesses that employ people, provide things that we commoners wish to buy, and support families. However, when assets are transferred from the estate of one to some other person, that other will have the opportunity to put them to use in the economy. I suspect that erterter really knows this, but he/she just wishes to ignore it in pursuit of his/her own political objective, which is: Convincing the sovereign power to forcibly take, for erterter's pet project, that which belongs to somebody else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome wishful thinking: Mitt Romney limps into the convention next summer with a plurality. Romney fails to persuade delegates of other candidates to swing behind him. The deadlock is broken when a "Draft Ryan" movement gains momentum, Paul Ryan's nominated, and accepts. Obama is terrified of Ryan ever since Ryan, in his calm but passionate manner, eviscerated ObamaCare at the White House. Ryan has a great personal story, too, to go along with his gravitas.
One can dream, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn a debate, Ryan would mow through Obama faster than the Terminator laid waste to the Los Angeles police force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom Charlie Pierce's response:
"Holy god, this stuff was old when Newt Gingrich was peddling it in his previous life. Tell us, congressman, when you were skating for a couple of years on your Social Security survivor's benefits, and when your family stayed on the government dole for longer that that, "taking" from, among other people, my parents and me, how did you manage not to be "lulled" into a life of "complacency" and "dependency"? How were you not "drained" of your "incentive"? How was your "will to make the most of your life" not drained, as well. What's the magic number? Two years on the dole? Three? Five? Let us know so we can stop pestering you and find our bootstraps.
I suspect it was because, after you left the family earth-moving business, you eventually went to work on a government paycheck for Senator Bob Kasten, and then you went to work on a government paycheck for Senator Sam Brownback, and then you went briefly into the private sector — as a speechwriter for the late Jack Kemp — before going back on a government paycheck when you were elected to the House, 13 years ago. At which point, you became the pet Big Thinker and point man for a bunch of rich people, including many — Was the wine to your liking, by the way? — of the same folks that crashed the economy in 2008, thereby creating the conditions that, much to your obvious pain and chagrin, are turning so many of your fellow citizens into dependent, complacent, will-lacking slobs, because they're taking unemployment benefits. That pretty much guaranteed you wouldn't be paying for your own dinners much any more."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePierce is yammering about words being "old" for decades? This response has 40 years of dust falling off it.
(One wonders what Pierce's response to the OWS manifesto was, considering everything in it was "old" when Gene Debs was shilling for it back during World War I.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Tell us, congressman, when you were skating for a couple of years on your Social Security survivor's benefits,"
Oh I love this!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShame on you, Rep. Ryan, for allowing your father to die when you were 16 (so sorry you were the one who had to find him) and collecting the Social Security benefits that he had paid into the system prior to his early demise.
How could not not realize that these benefits, which you saved to pay college tuition, would be characterized as being "on the dole"?
"Drop the cheap shots and the intellectual laziness. Concede that the other side, though perhaps misguided, genuinely believes that its solutions will work and is not carrying water for some evil special interest."
Wow, talk about a lack of self-awareness.
Ryan, and conservatives in general, could benefit from Ryan's advice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse