-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack interviewed GOP budgeteer-in-chief Rep. Paul Ryan, and learned that Ryan is comfortable with all of the Republican nominee hopefuls on entitlements:
Asked if he’s concerned that his work on the budget will have been for nothing if the GOP nominee runs away from entitlement reform, Ryan replies, “I don’t think he will. I don’t think he can.”
“I’ve talked to all of these candidates, and I’m convinced that they want it, that they know we’ve got to do this fast. We’ve got to do entitlement reform,” he says.
Even Mitt Romney, who has attacked Rick Perry for his rough rhetoric about Social Security? “I spent an hour with Romney on Thursday,” Ryan says. The two talked about entitlements on Capitol Hill. “I think he gets the situation, and I think he’s serious about fixing it if elected. I think Perry’s the same way. I know Herman’s the same way.”
Furthermore, Ryan, who has proposed sweeping free-market health care reform in addition to entitlement reform, trusts Romney on health care issues, despite Romneycare:
But what about Romneycare? Ryan has said Romneycare is “not that dissimilar to Obamacare.” Is Ryan “intellectually dishonest,” as New Jersey governor Chris Christie said of those who claim the two programs are similar?
“Well, I guess from a federalism standpoint, I understand that point,” Ryan says with a laugh. He doesn’t back off of his judgment about Romneycare, but says the issue is irrelevant. “I don’t think this question matters that much anymore because Romney’s been very clear that he’s against Obamacare and he’s going to repeal it. So I for a second don’t worry about whether he’s going to shy away from repealing the president’s health care law.”
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/11/01/romney-on-entitlements-ok-by-p
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Chuck| 11.1.11 @ 5:37PM
If you believe Romney will repeal Obamacare I have a bridge in Chappaquiddick I want to sell to you.
Bumr50| 11.1.11 @ 5:37PM
LOL.
So I'm supposed to find it acceptable to vote for Mitt Romney now?
Not. Gonna. Happen.
I don't care if Obama is elected again. Better to have him driving towards the cliff with a Republican congress keeping him in check than to elect another RINO placeholder.
If the GOP can't wrap it's head around the fact that no one likes him, it's time for them to fade into the annals of history as the party that refused to acknowledge it's base.
C Bowen | 11.1.11 @ 6:35PM
Paul TARP Ryan only has meaning to the Ruling Class. His plan doesn't call for a balanced budget in 10 years, or anytime soon--but the Ruling Class pretends in the media that he is a conservative.
Paul Ryan is the guy saying, "Please sir, may I have another."
Chrysanthemum Tea| 11.1.11 @ 7:22PM
Do you have someone in mind who has a plan that would balance the budget in ten years?
And is it a plan that provides the details about what will be cut, how the tax system will be modified, etc?
And is it a plan that the House and Senate, even assuming substantial GOP gains in both, might reasonably be expected to pass?
C Bowen | 11.1.11 @ 7:56PM
Ron Paul's plan, which he released a couple weeks ago: Cut a trillion dollars year 1, cut taxes, balance in three years.
It was a compromise with his base who want to balance in year one, and abolish the income tax. As far as getting it passed, support from Democrats on ending Obama/Bush/Clinton's insane and expensive foreign policy, end corporate subsidies/bailouts, support from Republicans in cutting taxes and abolishing needless departments like Commerce, Energy, and Education. I think he could pull that off.
Surely, good citizen, you are familiar?
Chrysanthemum Tea| 11.1.11 @ 8:50PM
Support from Dems on ending current foreign policy? You badly misunderstand Dems. Support from Dems on ending corporate subsidies/bailouts? Did you forget who pushed most of those bailouts and subsidies?
On what planet are Republican politicians going to stop worrying about reelection and vote for deeply unpopular spending cuts? They're going to fall on their swords because Ron Paul will inspire them so deeply or something?
This is the sort of thing that keeps Ron Paul from being taken seriously. He has some good ideas, but then he turns them into these simplistic fantasies that just sound nuts to anyone who wants to accomplish things in the real world. It's like sitting around in someone's freshman dormroom talking big talk vs. having to go out into the real world and actually get something done.
And his base was pushing him to do it in ONE year? Wow. That almost makes me feel sorry for him.
Solo| 11.2.11 @ 7:12AM
Precisely, CT.
"Politics is the art of the possible."
If we were under the benevolent dictatorship of the RuPaul, balancing the budget and effecting his proposed changes might be a good thing (with the exception of his naive and otherwise dangerous foreign policy fantasy).
But, alas, the Constitution won't permit such a thing.
C Bowen | 11.2.11 @ 7:20AM
Solo--
You were the guy who wrote you were scared Saddam and his team of Evil Scientists were going to attack the US, right? LOL--sorry, we cannot afford your chicken little foreign policy anymore.
Solo| 11.2.11 @ 7:58AM
No, Bowen! YOU are the one who claimed that I was "scared" of Saddam.
And..being a PaulBot, your claims don't amount to much.
C Bowen| 11.2.11 @ 10:01AM
You wrote (do you want me to look it up?) that you were scared Saddam was going to develop a super-toxin and send someone over on airplane, thus justifying a trillion dollar debt financed invasion and occupation.
What other conclusion can one reach, reading your logic, other than you were really scared?
C Bowen | 11.2.11 @ 7:22AM
CT;
Go ahead and surrender, compromise, and capitulate to the Left.
Ron Paul's plan actually bothers with political calculus to get support for cutting spending now; support from the Tea Party, and potentially, support from the Dems. The Neocons and Clinton Dems are the enemy to real reform.
Chrysanthemum Tea| 11.2.11 @ 11:36AM
It's living within reality, not capitulating to the left.
Ron Paul's plan doesn't even come close to being implementable in the real world. You vastly overestimate the cooperation you could get from Dems. You know you won't get cooperation from establishment Republicans and do I need to remind you that there are quite a few of them, and in powerful positions?
Look at how much arm twisting it took to get the level of support Ryan's plan got, and that was for a vote in the House that was largely symbolic because it was clear that the Senate would kill it. The House Republicans could vote for Ryan's bill without having to go back to their home district and explain their support for entitlement cuts and so on, because it was clear that it wasn't going to become law. Even then it was an uphill battle to get representatives on board. And you think you're going to get enough support for a budget that is far, far more severe?
It's better to take the largest win that is pragmatically possible in the real world, than to lose with an idealistic fantasy.
C Bowen | 11.2.11 @ 12:18PM
Surrendering to the Left and the Establishment Republicans has accomplished zilch.
The Ryan plan called for raising the debt ceiling, cutting entitlement growth in the future, and still, not balancing the budget.
This is pretty much the opposite of the Tea Party message as I interpreted it (cut spending save my Medicare or something like that.)
The Ryan plan doesn't make any political sense and thus had no chance. Ryan was and is a ridiculous choice as he supported TARP, drug bennies for old people, and on and on and on.
Now, shocker, Ryan is cool with Romneycare.
The conditioners have worked their magic again on you--already to capitulate.
Jeff Powell| 11.1.11 @ 10:56PM
What you see here are the stars of the Republican party accepting that Mitt will be the nominee in 2012 and trying to square his ambivalence on critical issues with their own positions.
After all, it is Romney's turn to lose a presidential election, isn't it?
Guest1776| 11.2.11 @ 3:04AM
Isn't this laissez-faire approach exactly what we tried from 1979 to
2007, when inequality shot through the roof, according to the CBO?
NO! What we had is government interference into free markets and when government interferes it distorts the market and bubbles are created and popped. Take Fannie and Freddie with all their just sign here and own a home loans for instance. It created a boom as homes were in demand and put a lot of people to work building them but it was a bubble bound to pop because it was created by government forcing banks out of time tested loan standards the community organizers like Obama called racist. You know its racist for a bank to require good credit, 10-15% down and ability to pay loan with one week's pay etc...
Many people want to blame Wall St and the removal of Glass-Steagall but the fact is if that never happened there is still a banking crisis because of sub primes loans banks were forced to come up with by government that were based on the economy.
And another thing to consider is that if all those loans that were packed and sold were time tested loan standards before the government interfered then the Glass-Steagall thing wouldn't have mattered much because they would have been responsible loans where mortgages were paid regardless of slowing economy.
Pols like to have it both ways. For example Democrats are demonizing banks for not making small business loans yet require banks to have more cash on hand before making them. Dodd/Frank did that and did not address the F&F problem. Another example of government interfering into free markets is the Durbin Tax banks are now charging for debit card use. Example: Walmart and banks willfully agreed that Walmart will pay pennies per purchases using debit cards so banks didn't charge you the customer to cover their processing cost. The Durbin Tax removed that and now banks have to charge you $5.00 a month for your debit card whether you use it or not to cover the cost while Dick Durbin demonizes banks for charging that fee he forced them into charging.
Pols love to have both ways and its the same thing with the 70,000+ pages of tax code where pols are demonizing companies they tax for raising the cost of their product or service after pols raise their cost through higher taxes. Pols know those cost are always passed onto the consumer but its a win/win for them because they can then demonize the companies.
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan gets rid of all those hidden taxes and loopholes within the 70,000+ pages of tax code lobbyist lobby them to change etc... and when implemented 9-9-9 will result in an economic boom with cheaper products because companies will evaluate their bottom line with the money they save and lower cost trying to steal consumers from their competition. Competition is always good for the consumer and this is exactly why big corps lobby for taxes and loopholes that'll hurt their small business counterparts and exactly the reason we need a Main St President not a Wall St POTUS like Obama has been or Romney will be.
Basically at the root of the problem with the mortgage crisis is this noble but misguided idea that everyone deserves to own a home. Its not true! You deserve to ow a home when you can meet the free market standards for getting a loan. To pretend as pols do that banks want to loose money on their loans and need a bailout is nonsensical.
Solo| 11.2.11 @ 7:22AM
I disagree that Romney will work to repeal ObamaCare. He'll shave the edges a bit and call it a victory.
Already, some republicans are showing weakness in their convictions to repeal ObamaCare. There are rumblings that they may seek to preserve large portions of the legislation such as keeping "children" up to 26 years of age on their parent's policy and removing the restriction on pre-existing conditions.
Romney and these RINOS will find it all too easy to go the populist route and leave much of this "Obamination" intact.
We will need a committed and principled conservative showing real leadership to hold the Repeal coalition in place. And Romney ain't it!
Teflon93| 11.2.11 @ 10:28AM
I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Romney.
If we're going to have a statist in office, might as well pick the one from the statist party and at least preserve the GOP's future viability as the party of freedom.