Rep. Paul Ryan destroyed acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller Friday during testimony at the House Ways and Means Committee hearing…
The GOP Establishment is moving at warp speed to reload itself to attract a more liberal voter than what was once considered its base.
The term “libertarian” is being bandied about, but perhaps “liberal-tarian” is more accurate.
Establishment Republicans don’t want to appear liberal. Seeming openly socialist is the last thing they want – at least until the 2014 midterm results are tallied.
That’s why so many warm to libertarianism, at least on social issues like gay marriage and drug legalization, where they feel they can woo away Obama voters.
They fear the president’s two victories presage a post- modern, Roosevelt-style coalition that will have Democrats in the White House for generations.
The irony is while socially liberal, libertarians are frighteningly anti-government by progressive and even mainstream conservative standards. They make Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan look like Hippies on fiscal matters.
I guess the Republican establishment wants liberal-tarian street cred on social issues while stuffing the more fiscally unpleasant aspects of libertarianism in their proverbial back pockets.
How or if this 21st Century version of 1960s fusionism (traditionalism plus laissez-faire economics) can happen is a magic trick to test the legerdemain of David Copperfield.
What worries GOP purists and pragmatists alike is whether an internet edition of Roosevelt-era “Me Too” Republicanism will save a nation they feel has abandoned all that made it great.
In their minds (mine included) is the sinking suspicion that the GOP has morphed from meaning “Grand Old Party” to “Genuflecting Ourselves Party,” before the altar of political expediency.
(Originally published in The Bold Pursuit)
© TBP Publishing 2013, The Bold Pursuit®. All Rights Reserved
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)
Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2012 and an abortion opponent, said Thursday that anti-abortion activists should try to build a broad coalition and find common ground with supporters of abortion rights as a way to advance their agenda.
Ryan, R-Wis., said in a speech to the Susan B. Anthony List that those who oppose abortion “need to work with people who consider themselves pro-choice — because our task isn’t to purge our ranks. It’s to grow them.”
“We don’t want a country where abortion is simply outlawed. We want a country where it isn’t even considered,” he said.
Ryan told the organization that seeks to elect women who oppose abortion rights that “labels can be misleading.” He pointed to former GOP Sen. Scott Brown, whose 2010 election in Massachusetts nearly derailed President Barack Obama’s health care law. Brown supports abortion rights. In contrast, Ryan told the group that former Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, who opposed abortion, “delivered the votes that passed it into law.”
Many opponents of abortion disagreed with the health care overhaul because it requires most employers to cover birth control free of charge to female workers as a preventative service. The law exempted churches and other houses of worship.
Read More at OfficialWire . By Ken Thomas.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore Creative Commons
There are many successful liberals, so why do so many of them wish to subsidize failure for the poor instead of showing them how to succeed? Is it because they need the poor and downtrodden to remain that way so that they can get the victims to vote the way they want them to? Once the insidious specter of welfare is introduced, many people on the cusp of poverty are encouraged to stay there so they can keep on collecting the benefits that can amount to more than $80,000 in some cases. Not bad if you can get it.
Dr. Ben Carson is one example of someone who pulled himself out of poverty. Dr. Carson, the renowned neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md., is enjoying a surprising celebrity status unrelated to his profession for speaking his mind at a public forum. He simply said that individuals and the nation might succeed if more Americans were less dependent on government assistance. He made that statement at the nation’s recent Prayer Breakfast with President Obama sitting to his left. The president was not happy with his comments. But since Dr. Carson did not have a teleprompter or prepared script, he could not submit his talking points to Obama’s secretaries before the breakfast. He simply told them he would give a short speech and compose it as he spoke. And that is what he did.
Dr. Carson, who is African-American, has been denounced as insufficiently black because he won’t toe the liberal line when it comes to big government and the implication that the poor (and the African-American voting bloc who fall below the poverty line) cannot succeed without it. The fact that many have not succeeded with government (and in some cases, the government is actually responsible for their continuing poverty and misery) has apparently escaped the notice of his critics, many of whom appeared on the Nanny Press and Obama-supporting stations over the weekend. Chris Matthews went on such a tirade I thought he was going to have a stroke. Unfortunately, God did not think it was his time.
Speaking with Megyn Kelly on Fox News’ “America Live” last week, Dr. Carson addressed some of the slurs tossed at him, saying they are what you might expect to hear “on a third grade playground.” It is the type of rhetoric that bullies use to keep you quiet. Dr. Carson appealed to his detractors to “move beyond” such rhetoric and “have a real discussion about the real facts. If somebody disagrees, let’s talk about why they disagree, let’s talk about the pros and cons, let’s see if we can find some accommodation.” That is how this earnest and thoughtful man put it. Of course, the simple logic was lost on the narcissistic, left-leaning socialists.
That is precisely what the left does not want to do because to have such a discussion would expose liberalism’s failure to solve the problems of poverty and education — to cite just two examples — through government. The school systems that have been given the most federal funding have among the lowest test scores in the nation. Many who graduate public school from the eighth grade can’t read or write clearly. They spell at a third grade level. What is the liberal answer to that? Give them more money and dumb down the textbooks. In other words, liberal socialists know that if they keep the populace illiterate, they will be able to control whatever they do.
MSNBC’s Toure Monday has called Dr. Carson a token “black friend” to the Republican Party. I watched many of his interviews because I like the way he puts things, and I don’t recall Dr. Carson ever saying he belongs to the Republican Party. He did say that he has independent thoughts, and that is what drives the liberal left nuts. Even so, labels should not define the man. What Dr. Carson is saying and what he represents should be the beginning of any discussion on what he is trying to say and do.
Liberals want to silence people of conscience and will use any means to do it. In Dr. Carson’s case, they branded him an Uncle Tom, thinking they could intimidate him to act like one. They were wrong. Dr. Carson is an eloquent speaker who uses logic like a scapel. He cuts the heart out of the liberal left argument quietly and efficiently.
Dr. Carson dismissed one suggestion he might be an “Uncle Tom” this way: “Well, obviously they don’t know what an Uncle Tom is because they need to read Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’ You’ll see that he was very, very subservient, kind of go along to get along type of person. Obviously, that’s not what I’m doing.”
No, Dr. Carson, you certainly are not an Uncle Tom by any stretch of the imagination. You are more like Cuba Gooding Jr.’s character in the movie “Men of Honor”. It is fitting that Cuba Gooding Jr. portrayed Dr. Carson in the movie “Gifted Hands”.
It is fitting that the conservative movement in America is looking to men like Dr. Ben Carson to quietly and eloquently make their cogent points to the average American voter. With him up front with heroes like Senator Marco Rubio, Congressman Gowdy, Senator Ted Cruz, and Congressman Paul Ryan, I think we have a really good chance of taking back America from the Secular Progressive Socialists.
Photo credit: JSmith Photo (Creative Commons)
What happened to the crisis predicted by President Barack Obama as a result of the $85 billion sequester cut in government spending? Well, it turns out there was none: the food inspectors, the Yellowstone rangers, the border police, the military tuition granters, the Coast Guard, the airport screeners—none of them were laid off. The Pentagon has “delayed” the furlough notices planned for 800,000 civilian defense workers, probably forever. The air controllers are still threatening furloughs and consequent delays, but it will not happen. The president did not even carry out his threat to eliminate the Easter Egg Roll or the White House tours.
However, The Standard & Poors 500 stock average went up 9 percent, and the economy added 356,000 jobs since the sequester passed. Some crisis! A few more sequesters and the economy might even rise from its slumber. But do not count on it. The president promises no more domestic spending cuts.
What, you noticed there really were no cuts as a result of the sequester? The mainstream media kept it pretty quiet, but last year’s Washington spending was $3,538 billion; and after the sequester’s supposed cuts, the government will spend $3,553 billion. A little subtraction shows that is a $15 billion increase in government spending. Rack it up to creative accounting. Only in Washington D.C. would spending $15 billion more than in the previous year be called a cut.
The bad news is that the sequester will be the end of even paper cuts for the next four years. Even the Republican budget is not about real spending reductions. The Paul Ryan plan has no chance of passing the Senate, much less surviving a veto. It ignores the biggest program (Social Security) and defers reform in the program that is most in debt (Medicare). Most of the Ryan cuts come from the elimination of Obamacare, which will not happen as long as Obama is president. The Ryan budget is important to make a political case, but it is not serious cost cutting. His caution actually makes political sense. The entitlements are the Democrats’ programs, and it is their responsibility to reform them.
The whole idea of the bureaucracy not being able to handle a five to eight percent “cut” is ludicrous. During the first Reagan year, we cut domestic discretionary spending ten percent in real money with no one noticing a thing. While the White House originally claimed cuts had to be made in the relatively small “projects, program, and activities” categories, the law actually required cuts in Budget Authority categories. There are 1,200 of these with very roughly 1,500 employees each. Any government manager who cannot assign the critical people to the essential work should be fired for incompetence, especially with all of the contracts, supplies, training, and perks that can be delayed first. His boss should be fired too, right up to the very top.
We might as well stop abusing George Washington’s name and re-label the nation’s capital “Sequester D.C.” One dictionary definition of sequester is to “withdraw into retirement.” With the coming entitlement financial explosion in the aging programs, retirement will be the only thing the national government will be able to afford. That is not all bad news. While it may be difficult to run national defense on fumes, most domestic federal programs can be run better at the state or local level or privately anyway.
Let’s call it federalism by the back door. As the government keeps spending more and more on the elderly, the abusive welfare state regulatory programs must be paired back. All national government taxation will be sequestered to retirement spending, and the Federal Government will become the Department of Gerontology. All societal energy will be local and private. Back in the old days before Obama, progressive intellectuals realized this and were for entitlement reforms to save their regulatory state. All conservatives need to do now is sit back and watch the fun as progressives starve their own creation.
Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline On Line, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at The Fund for American Studies.
After I watched what might have been the last hope for a gasping America collapse last election eve, I knew that my worst fears for this nation had been realized: Mob rule had ultimately been established via the voting booth. A league of mindless dummies, who feed on media pablum the way cattle do at a trough, had been taken out of storage and mobilized long enough to reinstall the media’s chosen candidate. Obama floated back into office resting on a sea of false laurels, empty promises and promotion generated from amongst the highest priests of Hollywood’s most popular puppets. That and shamelessly obvious ballot rigging put the serious hurt on any opportunity for conservatism and reason to find an equal voice outside the ranks of its own.
But what followed the next morning was even more appalling. I began to hear ‘Republicans’ actually ridiculing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for what they had represented. Since the two had lost, people who had just the day before been ardent supporters were now distancing themselves from the two lepers who stood to infect them politically. I was amazed at the shallowness of such fair-weather ‘team members.’ But I was even more amazed when the GOP began issuing apologies to liberal America for having so excluded the ‘valuable and noteworthy’ priorities of so many progressive thinkers who want socialized pampering, gay marriage and drive-through abortions. Incredibly, with hat in hand, the Republican Party genuflected before a pack of dogs in trying to secure some future opportunity to garner their affection (votes). It was shameful and downright weird. It was the beginning of the manifestation of the crowd of impostors we now call ‘RINOs’ (Republicans in Name Only).
But their actions had nothing to do with the real ‘Grand Old Party.’ No, it is becoming nauseatingly clear that their compromise is wholly unrelated to a regard for the welfare of our nation or any preservation of its sanity. It is entirely about a group of selfish men and women who are looking to make the world safe for themselves with job security in a climate of trendy electability. To call these people ‘politicians’ insults even the legacies of ‘Boss Tweed,’ Huey Long, Rahm Emanuel and PT Barnum. But they have done us a favor by showing us their true colors. “When a man shows you what he is, believe him.”
Of course I voted for Romney and Ryan – but, for the life of me, I could not understand how in the world we expected to win with those two AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IN HISTORY. Make no mistake about it, I totally admire the qualities of both men and believe that their clear vision for the needs of our dying country would have been the healing elixir that we absolutely needed. Nevertheless, my most rudimentary marketing sense made me wonder why we would run the 1967 version of Batman and Robin against Obama. The ‘cool’ Barach was already expertly dialed in to the throngs of people who resented everything Romney and Ryan stood for. Given that the pundits and mentors of the left are now rocket scientists like Oprah, Snoop Dogg, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and a host of movie celebrities, rock stars and nighttime talkshow hosts, what sort of merchandise do you THINK Comedy Central or David Letterman would make of the fumbling elephant and its “two white guys in suits?” Again, I AM NOT knocking anything about the impeccable and superlative characters and savvy of Romney and Ryan. I am just left aghast at the timing of that choice. In 2012 it couldn’t work, and that SHOULD have been seen UPFRONT. As I am writing this, we still have an untapped and abundant source of very hip women, Black and Hispanic possible candidates -REAL CONSERVATIVES – who could have done the presidency blindfolded and standing on their heads while very gracefully saving our country from the deliberate ravages of a charlatan Obama. Thinking along those lines would’ve been nothing more than good stewardship in preserving the values we hold so dear.
So, as America is SO CLOSE to going down for the last time, let us pray for emerging leadership that will put our remedy in packaging that will tenaciously appeal not only to us inhouse but also to the new capricious mindset of much of America. The voters in that new plurality have abundantly shown that they lack the sense to think for themselves or to discern what is best for the lasting welfare of our nation. If the democrats can achieve the results they do by so spoon-feeding their constituency with minced words and sleight-of-hand, we can, WITHOUT CONCESSION, certainly do better in the legitimate promotion of good things made more tantalizing to that same audience. And, as for the ‘GOP’ that is in fact no GOP, let them go ahead as turncoats shooting themselves in the feet. They have in their self-serving avarice forgotten that along with compromise comes impotence. As the newly emerging Right redoubles its effort in reclaiming and repairing the United States of America, the counterfeits will be left to themselves, exposed and unemployed. In the meantime, we must remember that the same sincerity and resolve that gave us this great nation will, with God’s blessing on our best efforts, bring it back to its feet.
During the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Paul Ryan seemed to be a bright light at the end of the black fiscal tunnel. I rejoiced in his in-your-face attitude regarding unbridled government spending due to the lack of a balanced budget. However, since the campaign, I’ve studied the government’s budgeting process and am now concerned that Representative Ryan may not be as righteous as I first believed him to be.
My studies revealed that in 1974, the US Congress enacted the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Following the implementation of the Act, federal budget deficits and the national debt began to rapidly increase. I researched the Act and analyzed the subsequent historical budgets, deficits, and increases in debt – and I discovered an unbelievable fact. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established a federal budget process designed to automatically increase spending without any consideration of the available revenue (income).
For clarification, I discovered that the federal budget process as established by The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is based on setting this year’s federal spending level equal to what was actually spent last year after adding suitable increases for inflation and population growth. Therefore, because revenue has no part in the budgeting process, the spending will always be higher than last year (even if the budget is balanced). So it appears that the expectation that balancing the federal budget will eliminate the deficit and stop the rise in national debt is false – and that Representative Ryan’s current “balanced budget” proposal may in truth be a diversion from the real objective – a zero deficit.
Therefore, I challenge Representative Ryan to clarify his budget. Does it balance against revenue (in other words, does it immediately stop government growth and money borrowing/printing?) If the answer is no, Representative Ryan’s balanced budget is a fiscal red herring that the conservative base will view as an act of fiscal infidelity.
Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)
New Challenges Timeless Principles
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan addressed an enthusiastic group of conservative activists during ACU’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC 2013) in the Washington, D.C. area. The Wisconsin Congressman and former Republican Vice Presidential nominee was introduced by Al Cardenas, ACU’s President, to a standing ovation.
Chairman Ryan’s full remarks as prepared for delivery are below [YouTube video also available further below]:
“Thanks, Al. I’m happy to be here. We all need a break from the mess in Washington. And CPAC is just the occasion. It’s a time to take stock, to catch up with friends, and to plan for the future. It’s also a relief to see a room full of conservatives for a change. So I’m grateful for the chance to speak with you today. Thanks again, everybody.
This has been a big week. We got white smoke from the Vatican—and a budget from the Senate. The Senate calls their budget a Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity. Wow, I feel like saluting already. But when you read it, you find the Vatican’s not the only place blowing smoke this week. They call their budget a balanced approach. But the thing is—they never balance the budget—ever. In fact, they call for another trillion-dollar tax hike on top of even more spending.
We take the opposite approach. And I’m proud of our budget—because it’s changed the conversation. Today, we’re not talking about cliffs or ceilings or sequesters. We’re talking about solutions. That’s how it should be. Our budget expands opportunity by growing the economy. It strengthens the safety net by retooling government. It restores fairness by ending cronyism. And by setting priorities and choosing wisely, it pays off our debt. In fact, we balance the budget in just ten years—without raising taxes.
How do we do it? It’s pretty simple: We stop spending money we don’t have. Historically, we’ve paid a little less than one-fifth of our income in taxes to the federal government each year. But the government has spent a lot more. So our budget matches spending with income. We say to Washington, “What we’re willing to pay is what you’re able to spend. Period.” Every family lives within a budget. Washington should do the same.
But the crucial question isn’t how we balance the budget. It’s why. The budget is a means to an end. We’re not balancing the budget as an accounting exercise. We’re not just trying to make the numbers add up. We are trying to improve people’s lives. Our debt is a threat to our country. We have to tackle this problem before it tackles us. So today I want to make the case for balance. That case—in a nutshell—is that a balanced budget will promote a healthier economy. It will create jobs. And nothing is more urgent.
Just look at where we are—and where we’re going. Last quarter, the economy grew by a hair. Unemployment is 7.7 percent. And 46 million people are living in poverty. The President says we’re in a recovery. I’d say we’re in critical care. Farther down the road, things will get worse. By the end of 2023, the economy will be at a crawl. And we will have added $8 trillion to our debt. That debt will weigh down the country like an anchor.
In short, we’re on the verge of a debt crisis. Our obligations are growing faster than our ability to pay them. Our debt is already bigger than our economy. At some point, lenders will lose confidence in us. They will demand higher interest rates. And when they do, interest rates across the country will skyrocket—on mortgages, on credit cards, on car loans. Pressed for cash, the government probably would take the easy way out: It would crank up the printing presses. The dollar would sink. Our finances would collapse. The safety net would unravel. And the most vulnerable? They would suffer the most.
A debt crisis would be more than an economic event. It would be a moral failure. You see, by cheapening our currency, government would cheat us of our just rewards. Even now, we’re hurting working
We know what the problem is. Our economy needs growth. Our entitlements need repair.
Our budget takes these necessary steps. But it also confronts a broader challenge. Our debt is a sign of overreach. It’s a sign the federal government is doing too much. And when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. We need to make this point more often: We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon—to shirk our obligations. We see it as an opportunity to reform government—to make it leaner and more effective. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal—because it returns government to its proper limits and focus.
When government overreaches, it doesn’t hurt just our pay checks. It also hurts our quality of life. We need to make room for community—for the vast middle ground between the government and the individual. We need to remember that people don’t find happiness in grim isolation or by government fiat. They find it through friendship—through free, vibrant exchange with people around them. They find it through achievement. They find it in their families and in their neighborhoods, in their churches and their youth groups. They find it in a healthy mix of self-fulfillment and belonging.
We belong to one country. But we also belong to thousands of communities—each of them rich in tradition. And these communities don’t obstruct our personal growth.
Our budget makes room for these communities to grow, so the people in them have room to thrive. But we can’t just talk about these communities. We have to talk with them. We have to engage them—because leaders don’t just speak up. They listen too. And if we listen more closely to the people, we will find that the answers to our problems lie a lot closer to home.
Let me tell you a story. Last month, I went to Milwaukee, where I met a man named Leroy Maclin. When Leroy was 14, he was convicted of a felony—and abandoned by his family. Now, he’s 27, and he’s got a job at an incredible organization called Milwaukee Working. It’s a nonprofit in the inner city started by a suburban church that sells donated goods on Amazon. No government agency built this company. No law forced these people to help each other. They came together on their own. They saw a need. And they met it.
And look at the results: Today, Leroy has turned his life around. He’s providing for his sons. And he’s an example for us all. Work gives people more than a paycheck. It gives them a sense of purpose—a sense of pride. It makes them a part of their community. It gives them the dignity we all deserve. We can’t forget this essential fact.
When we try to help struggling families, we should listen to people like Leroy—because they remind us that every life has the potential for redemption. Their example must inform our approach. And government must work with them, not against them.
But before all else,
Our budget offers an end to the brinkmanship. It restores regular order. We trim the federal government back to its proper size. We balance the budget. We give our communities the space they need to thrive. And we do it all out in the open—just as the Founders envisioned.
The other side can join us in this common-sense goal. Or they can choose the status quo. But they must choose. They can no longer hide behind inaction. The American people deserve an honest account of our challenges—and what’s needed to confront them.
We don’t hide our beliefs. We argue for them—because a budget is more than just a list of numbers. It’s an expression of our governing philosophy. And our budget draws a sharp contrast with the Left. It says to the people—in unmistakable terms—‘They are the party of shared hardship. We are the party of equal opportunity.’ Thank you.” [end of remarks]
Ryan’s full remarks:
Photos from CPAC 2013 are available for viewing via ACU’s Flickr account linked here.
Please note that the schedule has been announced, is updated daily and available on our new CPAC 2013 website under “Program.”
Founded in 1964, the American Conservative Union (ACU) is the oldest and largest grassroots conservative organization in the nation. For almost fifty years, ACU has served as an umbrella organization harnessing the collective strength of conservative organizations fighting for Americans who are concerned with liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values, and strong national defense. ACU defines conservatism, grows conservatism, and wins for conservatism.
How was it possible that Scott Walker was able to beat back so many challenges and build his reputation as a “union killer” in a state like Wisconsin, yet Mitt Romney still lost there, even with a popular Paul Ryan as his running mate? It happened because while the Democrats in Wisconsin and other states are turning on each other, they will stop fighting long enough to re-elect Democrat Barack Obama. This political reality has developed because the rank and file Democrats, who are being forced to work harder to fund the pensions of their “union brothers and sisters” have said “Enough!” They don’t care about Democrat union members now that THEY have learned THEY are funding the pay and benefits packages they THOUGHT were paid for with money picked off a tree (some Democrats are THAT dumb).
This phenomenon is now taking shape in California. The current epicenter of the showdown between the makers and the takers is in San Diego, where voters last year supported reforms (read: reductions) of civil servants’ pension benefits. This, of course, has angered union members.
The cost of paying for the cushy retirements of these people has quintupled over the last dozen years; and at long last, the suckers don’t want to fund them anymore.
Naturally, the unions are fighting back. They’re claiming a lack of “go faith” on the part of the suckers in San Diego. The union thugs actually believe THEY have the power of “yes or no” in this matter. Why shouldn’t they feel this way? After all, the unions own California, and the suckers work FOR them.
The San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who can count voters, has come out fighting on this issue saying “We’re not gonna back down one iota, I can tell you that; Because the people do have a right under direct democracy to bypass the city council, to bypass the state legislature, to bypass the labor unions, and to bypass PERB. This is a constitutional right, no different than the first amendment.”
Based on what has happened around the state when other suckers have revolted, Goldsmith looks to be on the winning side. Other local governments are fighting their unions and winning. Surprisingly, even Governor Jerry Brown has joined the fight against the unions in spite of his having been a prime mover in creating this pension mess when he was governor the first time between 1975 and 1983.
What will come of this? Who knows? But any trouble in our enemy’s tent is a good thing.
Photo credit: photologue_np (Creative Commons)