See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Veep Pick Paul Ryan Is No Conservative
Source:
The New American Magazine
URL Source: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/po ... k-paul-ryan-is-no-conservative
Published: Aug 12, 2012
Author: Jack Kenny
Post Date: 2012-08-12 15:11:38 by hondo68
Keywords: backed "Government Motors", Omnibus Appropriations 2012, NDAA, TARP, Patriot Act, support of big-spending
Views: 587
Comments: 47
No sooner had Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate become known than the world of punditry was abuzz with talk of "Ryanmania." Since mania is by definition an excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm, the label may be regarded as an understatement.For while the seven-term Republican congressman from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee is not yet a household name across America, he does generate excitement within the "conservative movement," an excitement and enthusiasm that suggests the talking heads at Fox News and the dot.com warriors at The Weekly Standard have no more sense of conservative, constitutional government than the cheering chanting crowd of Republican partisans who greeted the vice presidential hopeful in Norfolk, Virginia, Saturday morning. Like him or not, the one thing politically aware Americans are supposed to know about Paul Ryan is that he is a fiscal conservative, a bold budget hawk. He is, after all, the prime author of the House budget plan (titled "the Path to Prosperity") to repeal the Obama health insurance program ("ObamaCare"), turn the Medicaid program for low-income Americans over to the states and create a private insurance option for Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2023. The plan would also turn food stamps and other federal programs for the poor into block grants to the states, with limits on the growth of those programs. If Republican voters have any doubts about Ryan's commitment to budget austerity, they need only hear the Democrats' outcry that Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" will be a road to the poorhouse for elderly and low-income Americans. But on the other side of the ledger, Ryan's voting record shows a robust support of big-spending programs to enlarge the role of the federal government, especially when they are promoted by a Republican in the White House. Ryan voted for all of the big-ticket, budget-busting items of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, often described as the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Ryan voted to create the new Department of Homeland Security, including the Transportation Security Administration that has harassed air travelers, while making aircraft safe from shoes, belt buckles and grandma's knitting needles. He voted for the PATRIOT Act, giving government enhanced powers for warrantless snooping into the lives of American citizens as well as foreign nationals. Ryan voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out the "too big to fail" financial institutions and inspired the Tea Party rebellion against big government and "crony capitalism." He backed the auto bailout that turned GM into "Government Motors." And while conservatives generally like to leave wars and military spending off the list of costly "big government" programs, Ryan's record on that front is also troubling. Like Romney, Ryan has no foreign policy credentials and no record of military service to point to in the election campaign. And like Romney, Ryan swallowed whole the Bush-Cheney line on Iraq and supported the decision to invade and occupy that country in a needless war that cost more than 4,000 American and hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives and has added roughly a trillion dollars to our soaring national debt. Ryan's budget calls for no reduction in military spending, despite the continued presence of U.S. troops in some 130 countries around the world, most of which have no bearing on our own national security. Even more troubling is Ryan's vote last December in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation included a provision authorizing the President to use the military to arrest suspected terrorists, including American citizens apprehended in the United States, and hold them indefinitely, without charges and without trial, in clear violation of due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This year Ryan voted against an amendment to remove that provision from the law. Ryan did vote against reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which grants loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments and businesses for the purchase of U.S. products. But his vote last year for the $915 billion Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2012 went to support further spending on housing, education, foreign aid, and other programs for which there is no constitutional role for the federal government. On The New American magazine's latest Freedom Index, matching congressional votes with the strictures of the Constitution, Ryan's rating for the 112th Congress to date was an anemic 67 percent. Paul Ryan is, in short, a typical Bush-era Republican, whose selection as a vice presidential candidate is being trumpeted as a triumph by many of the same Republicans who are doing their best to flush the administration of George W. Bush down the memory hole. Republican candidates almost never invoke the Bush name and the most recent Republican President will not be attending the party's convention in Tampa, where Romney and Ryan are expected to be officially nominated. Chances the name of the 43rd President will be mentioned in rare fleeting reference, if at all. Yet in his choice of running mate, Romney has chosen a loyal Bush Republican and reliable supporter of the programs and policies that made the Bush administration an anathema to genuine conservatives and an embarrassment to the nation. Finally, the Ryan budget, while including a number of unspecified cuts in entitlement programs, would push overall spending higher than current levels. Despite its optimistic revenue projections, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Ryan plan will lead to a balanced budget by 2040.That suggests a rousing slogan for the Romney-Ryan ticket: "Slightly Less Socialism And A Balanced Budget in 28 Years." Poster Comment: Just another big gov progressive like Obama and W. Mitt. 
Paul Ryan's first choice for a running mate?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
#17. To: hondo68, Turtle, F.A. Hayek Fan, X-15, scrapper2, Itistoolate, noone222, Prefrontal Vortex (#0)
Ryan only scores 60% on the Freedom Index. He voted to continue paying UN dues. Extended the Patriot Act. Voted against withdrawal from Libya and voted to keep funding action there. Voted to raise the debt limit. voted in another NAFTA like trade agreement with Korea. voted in favor of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. voted in favor of the line item veto which violates the separation of powers. Voted in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). and voted in favor of indefinite detention in the NDAA.
Hey, you don't need to convince me of Ryan's warts. But do you think he's as bad or worse than Obama? I firmly believe there is NOTHING as bad or worse than 4 more years of the CommunistInChief. But we are all free to make that choice in November. I am voting against Obama. Staying home is not an option for me, because that's a vote for Obama and the Alinsky crowd. As I recall you are/were a state employee. Maybe a pro-union Obama is better for you and your family. I pass no judgement. We all do what we need to do.
I firmly believe there is NOTHING as bad or worse than 4 more years of the CommunistInChief. I believe the global elites run the show and that it really doesn't matter what I think or who I vote for. I'll be voting Libertarian. I refuse to continue voting lesser of two evils. All that does is continue the farce of "choice".
Exactly... People trying their best to "rationalize" their voting, for whatever reason, are displaying the fact they are indeed brainwashed and programmed.
Rationalizing comes from all quarters: -those not voting -those who write in Ron Paul -those who vote against Obama. Doesn't mean any of the above are programmed or brainwashed. Brainwashed/programmed is ferret and shoonra.
The opposite to voting is non-voting. Peoples of the past have tried to exercise their right to not vote, and been criminalized for it. The worst example being the Soviet Union. Mostly Christians refused to participate in rigged elections, so the government passed a law making voting mandatory, or else. By doing so the best they accomplished was a 99.8 % rate of compliance. It was embarrassing to have people refuse to legitimize the government, so the law corrected that. My first vote was for Ike for two reasons. One, he promised to get me out of the Korean thing, AND I WAS BRAINWASHED INTO BELIEVING THAT VOTING WAS MY PATRIOTIC DUTY. There was one trifling detail that kept bothering me, how could BOTH parties offer Ike the top spot...JUST NOT POSSIBLE, unless there WAS BUT ONE PARTY. Ike got my worthless being out of Korea, so I repaid him in his second term. After that vote, all were "hold your nose" type votes. People have to do what their conscience dictates, not what they were brainwashed into doing.
Both results achieve the same end - ie. de-legitimizing government. Remember all of us chuckling when MSM promoted as proof positive evidence of "democracy as victor" when the Iraqis had a 98% turnout at the voting booths after Uncle Saddam's fall? Under Uncle Sam, the voting turnout was 99.5%. Not much difference - both were very obvious false indicators of democracy in action, of a legitimate government being elected by/for/from the People. The problem in America is that the majority of people will not get on board with the idea of not voting in mass. So if just a few people do not vote, it means there is a miniscule percentage loss in voter turn out. Going from a 34% voter turnout to a 33.9% turnout makes no point whatsoever. It does not show govt being de-legitimized. It just sends a message ( if noticed at all) to the world at large and to the PTB that "some malcontents" "threw their votes away."
Without checking, I believe the last estimate of non voters was eighty million Americans. Many descriptions of such people have been subscribed to, by the media, namely, ignorant, stupid, careless, moochers, even the term unsophisticated. Assuming ALL those attributes apply to we non voters, there are two lines of defense in our favor. We have a RIGHT TO NOT VOTE... The character of the government elected is a direct choice of those better qualified, therefore by extension, better, enlightened people, would elect a better enlightened government.
We have a RIGHT TO NOT VOTE... Absolutely, we have the right not to vote. And absolutely out of the 80 Million non-voters, there is a good % of people - not ALL by any means - who are NOT exercising choice. They just do not show up at the voting booth - a conscious deliberate decision involving "choice" was not in play. The % of non-voters who made a choice is 50/50, at best, I wager. Don't under estimate the % of slothful, stupid Americans who live in this country. Those afflictions are not merely things that affect people who vote GOP or Dem Party.
More than fifty years ago when I first took an active part in non partisan politics, my greatest learning came from "numbers crunchers" or statisticians. They cared less about who won or lost, rather what the numbers told them that was never in the media. The most eye opening was voting patterns going from the lowest of elected offices, dog catcher, to President of this country. The total number of voters, compared to votes for dog catcher were nearly always 100 per cent. As the importance of the office increased, the total number of voters remained the same, BUT THE COMBINED VOTES FOR EACH OFFICE DECREASED THE HIGHER ONE WENT. The office of the presidency ALWAYS HAD THE GREATEST DISPARITY. Voters knew they had no choice. They were voting against the system way back then, in increasing numbers as the years went by.
Could please provide a source for the stats that support what you say? I have never heard that theory before.
Before I could look it up for you, a kind soul, much younger than me, sent me this url on PM that they use.
Thank you and your friend for providing that statistical based link. Don't have time right now to read it and all its embedded links. But I hope to have more time this weekend to explore everything it offers. I'll get back to you on this subject.
There are no replies to Comment # 46. End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#18. To: farmfriend (#17)
#19. To: scrapper2 (#18)
But do you think he's as bad or worse than Obama?
#20. To: farmfriend (#19)
I believe the global elites run the show and that it really doesn't matter what I think or who I vote for.
#24. To: Cynicom (#20)
People trying their best to "rationalize" their voting, for whatever reason, are displaying the fact they are indeed brainwashed and programmed.
#27. To: scrapper2 (#24)
#29. To: Cynicom (#27)
By doing so the best they accomplished was a 99.8 % rate of compliance. It was embarrassing to have people refuse to legitimize the government, so the law corrected that.
#31. To: scrapper2 (#29)
The problem in America is that the majority of people will not get on board with the idea of not voting in mass
#32. To: Cynicom (#31)
Assuming ALL those attributes apply to we non voters, there are two lines of defense in our favor.
#36. To: scrapper2 (#32)
#38. To: Cynicom (#36)
The office of the presidency ALWAYS HAD THE GREATEST DISPARITY. Voters knew they had no choice. They were voting against the system way back then, in increasing numbers as the years went by.
#43. To: scrapper2 (#38)
Could please provide a source for the stats that support what you say?
#46. To: Cynicom (#43)
Replies to Comment # 46.