ConservativeHome's The Republican

It's good that liberals are attacking Paul Ryan, because they will lose the fight

Ryan Streeter

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard has been with Paul Ryan in Wisconsin and puts the whole heckling story in perspective.

It's a good post, because it makes an important point, even if it's not McCormack's chief point: attacking Paul Ryan is good for the GOP, bad for the left.

Citing a Politico story that described the police removing a shouting heckler from a town hall meeting as the "most dramatic moment" of Ryan's week in Wisconsin, McCormack writes:

Was one man being escorted from a town hall meeting the "most dramatic moment" of the week? Or was it more dramatic when hundreds of senior citizens gave not one but two standing ovations to a politician proposing a bold Medicare reform? Again, it's a matter of opinion. But the latter moment is a far more accurate depiction of what Ryan actually faced in his swing district these last two weeks.

He goes on to say:

Despite having a Democratic party tracker and Center for American Progress Action Fund blogger covering Ryan's town halls, all they have out of 19 hours of footage are a few clips of Ryan getting booed. They have a video of a constituent yelling "liar!" at Ryan. What they do not have is video of Ryan actually lying or getting stumped by a question. Liberals might not agree with him, but Ryan had a persuasive answer, filled with facts and figures, to every question he was asked.

My view has been for awhile that the more we put Paul Ryan out there, the more liberals will attack him...and the more that will backfire on them. Ryan is just about the most unassailable figure within the entire GOP. He's scandal-free, non-ideological, and he knows his own issues better than almost any opposing interlocutor.

Opposing him in a public forum will likely have the effect of winning over the independents or undecideds in the room who entered not knowing for sure what to make of the House Budget Committee chairman.

So, go for it, liberals, take him on. Try to refute him on Medicare or the debt and see how you look afterwards.

Palin on the other 2012 contenders: The more the merrier, I don't want to hear the elites saying who should run and who shouldn't

"Bless his heart" she says of Donald Trump, since he now has to face the "lamestream media." Hasn't Trump been a little more a part of the lamestream media than some of the others?

HotAir battleground survey results: If respondents are right about which party will take their state in 2012, the GOP nominee will win

Ryan Streeter

The results are here.

In addition to the following chart, there are three maps that look at the results differently.

The "In State Avg" column is how voters view the odds in their home state. In general, people in their own state are inclined to think their state leans right than those outside of it.

Could that be because most of us spend time talking to people in our own networks, which skews are views? (I recall a hard left friend of mine who spent all of his time in Manhattan and Los Angeles telling me in 2000 that he "didn't know ANYONE" who was voting for George W. Bush, so there was no chance he could win; the same phenomenon happens on the right)

For the sake of 2012, let's hope not!

A tax reform plan that the left and right can both learn to love

Ryan Streeter

I'm not so sure both sides will love it, but it's an intriguing proposal, from Laurence Kotlikoff and Andrew Weiss. In sum, the plan would allow people to choose to pay a 17.5% consumption tax or an upfront 15% tax on wages and wealth. It would make a monthly transfer payment to all households based on household size, and it would lift the payroll tax ceiling on earnings.

They close by saying:

Our country is saving nothing, investing nothing, growing more unequal, going broke and pulling apart. The current tax system makes these problems much worse. Our plan, called the Purple Tax Plan (www.thepurpletaxplan.org), provides a simple and transparent tax system with much better incentives to work and save, much greater revenue-generating capacity, and much greater equity. Best of all, both parties can call the plan their own.

Mitch Daniels signs the bill: "I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position"

Ryan Streeter

CBS news reports:

The Indiana bill will eliminate $2 million in federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives, funneled through the state (the legislature has no control over an additional $1 million Planned Parenthood in Indiana receives from the federal government). About $1.3 million of that money comes from Medicaid funds allocated for family planning. It will also ban abortions after 20 weeks.

The bill makes Indiana the first state to deny Medicaid funding for the Planned Parenthood clinics.

Many think that Daniels' signing it signals he might be repairing relationships with social conservatives (whom he upset by calling for a truce on social issues) to prep for a 2012 run. I want him to run, and I'm looking for signals that he will, but this isn't one of them. He made very clear back during the truce kerfluffle that his record on abortion and life issues was strong and stood on its own - and it does. That he signs the bill only shows that he is who he's always said he was. 

The biggest challenge for policymakers yet: reversing a growing dependency culture in parts of our society where we used to never expect it

Ryan Streeter

This morning I referenced the USA Today study out this week on the share of American income that is now coming from the government, but I didn't do it justice since it wasn't the main theme of my post.

It strikes me as just about the most alarming news we've heard this week, aside from the heart-breaking news out of the tornado-torn South.

The fact is this: never since the government started keeping the records in 1929 have wages counted for a lower share of overall income in America. It would be easy to dismiss this as the result of the recession, which has certainly had a noticeable effect, but the truth is that this has been a trend over time.

Rich Lowry sums it up well today.

Government accounted for roughly 12 percent of income from 1980 to 2000, according to the paper, then started an inexorable march upward. In 1990, Americans on average received $3,686 in benefits from government; in 2000, it was $4,763; in 2010, $7,427. Almost all of it comes from the feds.

Someone has to pay for this, and if it’s not our creditors, it’s people making money and paying taxes. The private economy is caught in a vise between old-age entitlements and welfare programs for the poor...Medicare has grown by 80 percent since 2000, and is set to career ever upward.

For every dollar of Social Security and Medicare, we spend roughly another 50 cents on anti-poverty programs, broadly defined. These programs have expanded at a rate 89 percent faster than inflation since 2000.

We have a twofold, huge problem in America of which I fear even most conservatives are not too aware.

First, we have a big dependency culture in our middle class that expects to receive its entitlements. They are the ones the Democrats are using to stir up the Mediscare pot. This is changing as Americans get up to speed more on the Ryan budget and the drivers of our debt, as Ryan likes to say. But the entitlement issue is still much better understood in Washington than it is in the heartland. People still don't fathom just how bad a problem Medicare, especially, is. And one has to wonder if we will be able to muster the political will to fully implement Ryan-esque reforms before the bond markets freak.

Second, and much less discussed, we have had - for a long time now - a steady decline in what economists refer to as the work-to-population ratio. Ron Haskins will weigh in on our site next week on this issue, so we'll save the substance until then. But, in a nutshell, we've been watching the ration decline, especially among males, and most especially among minority males. It's a different kind of dependency culture that's also a big part of our work-and-welfare conundrum.

We'll have more to say about this in the coming weeks.

By asking a bad question, Gallup reveals an important insight about how Americans feel about spending

Ryan Streeter

Gallup's poll results today are based on a leading question. Respondents were asked if the federal deficit has primarily been caused by spending on programs that "are either not needed or wasteful" or by not raising taxes enough.

Well, of course people are going to be disposed against federal programs that are "are not needed or wasteful." Gallup seemed to be erring on the side of purity (a deficit, by definition, takes in less than is spends and so either it's spending too much on things it doesn't need, or it should be taking in more for what it does need). But it does so by leading respondents.

Okay, enough of that. The results are still interesting. They suggest that Republicans should keep hammering away on spending as "unnecessary" or "wasteful."  Here's why:

One might expect the kind of gap you see on the Republican line, but the Democrat line is what's interesting. If Gallup hadn't asked such a leading question, certainly the gap would be less among Democrats. But given the leading question, it's still amazing that a 22% gap exists between those who believe Washington wastes too much money and those who think it doesn't tax us enough.

Sometimes, by their default defensiveness of everything the federal government does (except fight wars), it seems that Democrats are generallly fine with sloppy government programs. These results show they are not.

The more Republicans can follow the lead of Tom Coburn and others who have tried to quantify the waste, the more sympathy they'll get across the board on spending reduction. They'll certainly continue to get it from independents, as the chart above shows.

 

Jim Jordan to Republican Study Committee members: I know some are wary of the ongoing debt ceiling debate, but it might be imprudent to grant an increase before 2012 spending bills are settled

RSC Chairman Jim Jordan has sent the following letter to RSC members this morning regarding the upcoming debt ceiling vote. In the letter he promises a draft letter to GOP leadership next week based on a 3-part plan to get short-, mid-, and long-term spending strategies in place:

Dear RSC Colleague,
 
As we prepare to head back to Washington, I wanted to report back to you on our effort to hear your opinions about how the RSC should approach the debt ceiling issue.  I greatly appreciate the insight and direction that many Members provided me, both on tactics and policy.  Your feedback has been helpful and instructive to both me and our RSC staff.
 
The feedback was universal in terms of everyone recognizing the importance and opportunity associated with the issue—and how the debt ceiling affords conservatives real chances to win fiscal victories for the American people and turn our ship of state away from the fiscal iceberg ahead.
 
The sentiments of Members centered around three time-frames for policy objectives to demand in exchange for a debt ceiling increase: short-term, mid-range, and long-term.
 
In the short term, Members want a focus on immediate spending cuts.  Some Members suggested implementing the cuts contained in first year of the Conference Budget, others suggested implementing the cuts in the first year of the RSC budget (which would cut the current deficit nearly in half in FY2012), while others suggested savings from entitlement reforms.
 
In the mid-range, Members want a focus on making sure spending cuts continue into the future in a structural way.  Many Members suggested statutory, enforceable spending caps ratcheting down to various percentages of GDP—20%, 19%, 18%--and implementing some sort of automatic spending reduction method should these caps be breached.
 
In the long term, Members want fundamental change to way the United States Government collects and spends taxpayer dollars.  Many Members suggested the enactment of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, requiring the federal government to balance its books (with a high hurdle for raising taxes) every single year after a reasonable phase-in period to start.  Many Members prefer the version of the Balanced Budget Amendment that also includes a Spending Limitation Amendment—analogous to the statutory spending caps described above and mirroring the version that has the support of 47 Republican senators.
 
Tactically, there was strong sentiment for considerably limiting the extension of borrowing authority to ensure that Senate Democrats and the White House would follow through with any spending cut measures and to give us other chances this or next year to again force spending cuts and budget reforms upon less-than-willing Democrats.  However, I understand that many Members are wary of ongoing debt-ceiling battles.  Still, it might not be prudent to grant a debt-ceiling increase covering any part of FY2012 when neither a concurrent budget resolution nor any of the FY2012 appropriations bills have been enacted yet.
 
Additionally, many Members expressed strong support for taking the default issue off the table by enacting legislation, such as that put forth by Reps. McClintock, Stutzman, Yoder, Hunter, and others, that would require the Treasury Department, in the event that the federal debt ceiling is reached, to give priority to paying the principal and interest on the public debt.
 
The debt-ceiling issue is likely to come up quickly, thus it is imperative that we move quickly.
 
Therefore, RSC Budget and Spending Task Force Chairman Scott Garrett and I will begin working on a letter to our leadership that outlines a three-point plan to earn support for a short-term extension of borrowing authority.
 
We will circulate a draft of the letter next week.  While it won’t be perfect, we intend it to serve a useful purpose of uniting conservatives behind a plan to restore some fiscal sanity to Washington and communicating our efforts to the American people.
 
God bless,
 
Jim Jordan
Chairman, Republican Study Committee

What They're Saying: A look at the GOP lawmakers who have grown a little "weak-kneed" over Paul Ryan's much needed plan for Medicare reform

Natalie Gonnella

Republicans returned to their local districts last week ready to address questions related to the party’s “Path to Prosperity.” They’ve confronted voter apprehension, which has brought out the trepidation some of them have harboured all along.
 
Despite the fact that a plurality of voters appear to prefer the GOP plan, some Republican lawmakers (members of the leadership included) have grown a little sheepish. They are distancing themselves from Paul Ryan’s plans for Medicare reform, particularly as liberal’s have intensified their Mediscare fear mongering.
 
Weak knees are the opposite of what we need right now.
 
As freshman Congressman Lou Barletta said earlier this week “if members do not go back and make sure [constituents] are informed, then the scare tactics work.” A number of prominent Republicans don’t seem to have learned this lesson.  
 
On Monday Ryan called attention to the fact that potential presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich have avoided endorsing Ryan’s reforms. Regrettably this seems to be a growing trend among Republican lawmakers as well.
 
Here’s a look at a few of the congressional Republicans who appear to be taking a more non-committal (and non-courageous) approach to the GOP’s current plans for entitlement reform:

Surprisingly, House Speaker John Boehner, although supporting Ryan’s overall concept, in an interview with ABC News hinted that he may be open to other considerations:

I voted for it. I’m for it. It’s our idea…Paul’s idea. Other people have other ideas. I’m not wedded to one single idea, but I think it’s — we have a plan. Where’s the president’s plan to deal with the nightmare that’s facing Americans?

Senator Olympia Snowe said in an interview with WCSH 6, a Maine based NBC affiliate, that:

I don't happen to support Congressman Ryan's plan but at least he had the courage to put forward a plan to significantly reduce the debt…The president has yet to come up with a detailed plan…At least Ryan had the courage to come out with a detailed plan."  

Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of four Republicans to vote against Ryan’s plan in the House, said in a statement that he doesn’t support the Medicare provisions within the bill (he has also recently announced that he plans to run for Senate next year):

It doesn’t matter to me whether it’s a Republican plan or a Democrat plan, what matters is whether or not the plan is right for Montana.  This budget – the first one we have even considered in two years – has a lot of good things in it that I fully support.  But there are still too many unanswered questions with regard to Medicare reform, and I simply won’t support any plan until I know for a fact that Montana’s seniors will be protected…It’s being rushed through with little to no public input.  That’s just plain wrong.  Montanans deserve a chance to weigh in on this.  Additionally, as Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee it will be my responsibility to oversee the budget and at this point, there are just too many unanswered questions as to exactly how it will work

Also citing changes to Medicare as the main reason for voting against Ryan’s proposal, freshman Representative David McKinley discussed his views in a statement last week:

My home state of West Virginia has the highest percentage of Medicare beneficiaries in the country, and I cannot support a plan that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined would nearly double out-of-pocket healthcare costs for future retirees...There are attractive elements of the Ryan budget: it continues the ban on earmarks, repeals the job-killing provisions of the ObamaCare law, and reduces over-regulation on American job-creators to grow the economy. But the senior citizens of ten years from now have already experienced severe financial losses in their retirement funds due to job-killing policies in Washington and abuses by Wall Street. They deserve a Medicare program that takes into account the economic turmoil of the last few years and guarantees retirement security.

Senator Bob Corker, although a “major” supporter of Ryan’s efforts, in a recent interview with NPR coyly suggested that this is only “one route” of reforming entitlements,” remaining somewhat non-committal:

I have to tell you I'm a major fan of Paul Ryan's. And what I like is he's actually proposing a solution. I would go, you know, the characterization that you're giving would mean that people that are 54 and under would end up having exactly the kind of health care that senators have.
 
But the fact is, Paul Ryan's had the courage to lay something out there. Part of what he's laying out, as I understand, which I've been promoting, is constrained spending from where we are today at over 24 percent of spending relative to our overall economy, down to the 40-year average. And that's where you get those trillions of dollars in savings.
 
Obviously, to get there, you have to redesign these entitlement programs. And so, what I would say is, look, this is one route of getting there. My guess is the Gang of Six may come up with something else. 

Was Boehner for the Ryan budget before he was against it? The GOP faces a test of whether it has the courage to see deficit reduction through to the end

Ryan Streeter

John Boehner on April 13: “I fully support Paul Ryan's budget, including his efforts on Medicare.”

John Boehner on April 26: “Paul Ryan has an idea that’s certainly worth consideration. I’m for it. It’s our idea. It’s Paul [Ryan]’s idea. Now other people have other ideas. I’m not wedded to one single idea.”

Boehner’s comments are a good indication of where the GOP as a whole really stands on deficit reduction. “Fully support” and “not wedded” don’t square with each other. It’s as if Boehner is saying he was for the Ryan budget before he wasn't. The April 26 comments reveal a kind of schizophrenia on Medicare reform (let's face it: that's the part of the budget creating the real heartburn right now) that could undo the GOP's resolve to fix the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit.

I’m surprised Boehner's comments haven't gotten more play. The media, when not covering Trump and the birther drama, has given some attention to raucous town hall meetings in which citizens have voiced opposition to Medicare reforms.

But the real story may turn out to be the lack of Republican resolve ti see the reforms through to the end. 2012 hopefuls have already begun distancing themselves from Ryan, and Boehner's comments add even more cracks to the foundation Ryan has been trying to build.

This is a real problem, and here’s why: we need leaders who can turn a message people don’t want to hear into a message they embrace - and we don’t have many such leaders. Paul Ryan is one. Mitch Daniels is another. Chris Christie yet another. People don’t wan to hear that they have to changed their expectations about the future, especially when it implies fiscal belt-tightening. But these three leaders – and some others – have been able to deliver that message…and people have loved them for it.

The challenge is great. A larger percentage of Americans than ever before receive their income from government payments. Even before the recession, the trend has been toward greater dependence rather than lesser, even with welfare reform.

This means that the resistance to ending welfare in its many varieties for rich, poor, and middle class, is high.

Leaders like Ryan, Daniels, and Christie have been able to play to another side of human nature: the side that embraces freedom. People want their welfare, but they also respect those who stand for freedom from dependence.

To cower in the face of reform, as Boehner seems to have done with his comments, not only makes a man look small; it reintroduces uncertainty on an issue over which the public is already nervous.

The GOP is filled with characters who fear telling a country that has grown overly expectant on government security that things will be different, maybe even feel a little less secure. The irony is that Americans will always thank the one who delivers that message, if not now, in the long run.