Editorial: Ryan's Budget Plan Gets The Job Done

From IBD Editorials.  No additional commentary necessary.
Two Sisters.

America's Fiscal Future: Paul Ryan's budget plan dramatically slows spending growth, gets entitlements under control and begins the arduous task of easing the nation's crippling debt load. So what's not to like?

As Congress argues over a measly $33 billion in cuts to the 2011 budget to keep the government from shutting down, the plan by House Budget Chairman Ryan for 2012 and beyond not only reverses the Democrats' profligacy but returns the U.S. to a path of fiscal responsibility.


The plan trims $6.2 trillion from President Obama's budget (see chart), driving outlays back below 20% of GDP, their historic average, and well below the 25% in Obama's budget.


As for the squealing of the Democrats over vicious "cuts," spending actually grows from 2011 to 2021 under Ryan's plan by $1.12 trillion — an increase of 31%, or 3.1% a year. So those who say government is being "slashed" are being disingenuous.


In contrast, since Democrats took over Congress in 2006, spending has risen $1.2 trillion, or 44%. That amounts to a yearly gain of 9% that has pushed us to the brink of insolvency.


One thing that Ryan does slash is the deficit — by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. That's $4.4 trillion less for our children and grandchildren to repay. More importantly, debt peaks at a projected 74.5% of GDP in 2013, then recedes to 67.5% by 2021 — vs. 87.4% under Obama's budget.


This is accomplished mainly by reforming entitlement and welfare spending in ways that lower costs while giving people more choices.


Ryan starts by overturning ObamaCare, saving hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes. Then, for the first time ever, he proposes serious reforms for Medicare, the greatest danger to America's fiscal health.


Instead of government paying providers directly and deciding what their services are worth, new retirees would receive "premium support" to help them buy insurance on the open market — similar to the much-envied plan that Congress itself has now.


Ryan also reforms the welfare system, giving block grants to states for both Medicaid and food stamps. This gets the federal government out of the business of micromanaging Americans' choices and puts states in charge, as it should be.


None of this, of course, works without a healthy economy. To that end, following President Reagan's notably successful lead, Ryan proposes a bold tax reform — one that reduces the top corporate and individual tax rates from 36% and 39.6%, respectively, to 25%, and gets rid of many of what Ryan calls "deductions and loopholes" that make our tax code hideously complex and costly.


This is a great plan. And it's one that Americans, weary of the Big Government meddling of recent years, are ready to embrace. The only question is: Can Democrats muster the political wisdom and courage to support something from the opposition that would work?

We CHALLENGE the Democrats to reply!

Copyright© 2000-2011 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.



Support And Defend It, So Help Us God.

The United States House of Representatives convened today with the reading of the United States Constitution.  This brought cheers from many and the usual expected jeers from the left. "The work of many minds, the Constitution stands as a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise."  One has to imagine how during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in the spring and summer, in Philadelphia the delegates perspired, debated, argued, and compromised writing and rewriting the draft that would eventually become the Constitution of the United States. 

After reading and hearing the derogatory commentaries that have been made about the reading of the Constitution in Congress today, we think it is high time that Americans start paying more attention to the Constitution.  There are citizens of this country, registered to vote, who cannot distinguish the difference between the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence.  In fact, we dare say, they cannot speak about either one of those venerable documents.  Those who are so eagerly changing the content of American History books should consider including the Constitution in several chapters when teaching about government. It cannot be said enough: The Constitution is our framework of government.

In recent years it has become "de rigueur" for leftists  who want to be considered "cool, and with it" to put down the importance of the Constitution. Yes, there are the hard core socialists and ideologues who believe that their way of government is best. They'd happily do away with the Constitution. They work behind the scenes, but, they aren't the ones we constantly hear mocking the Constitution. Those who are promoting the cavalier dismissal of the U.S. Constitution, are television personalities, entertainers, pundits, and even some politicians.  It is particularly despicable to hear a politician disregard it after taking an oath of office affirming to defend and protect it.  It is those persons who have a media forum who encourage that way of thinking.  It is they, who have the following of imbeciles who propagate it, most of it to impressionable American youth.


We wonder if these performers have read even one paragraph, one article or one amendment of the Constitution, or if they simply parrot what others have said. Do they even know what the constitution addresses? Do they realize that Constitution, in its Preamble, explicitly delegates power to the people? No one handed us this law. "We the people of the United States of America" ordained and established the Constitution, and we did so for our own protection....to protect the blessings of liberty. We're willing to wager that those who disparage the Constitution would be the first to resort to its protection if they felt their civil rights were violated.

Once upon a time in America, the Constitution was taught rigorously.  Students were tested on what they had learned.  It made us better informed citizens to know how our government functioned, and what rights we had that were constitutionally protected.  

One advantage to having reached our mid sixties and having lived more than half a century in the United States, is that we've seen our country change. It hasn't always been for the better.  We've experienced much. In doing so we have been privileged to have known and lived the best that America had to offer. As in Dickens' " A Tale of Two Cities," we can say we knew when "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." We can also add, and we're the better for it, because we were all Americans encountering the same joys and the same sorrows as a nation. 
 
Although the standard of living has been raised in the interim, and advances in technology, science and most other fields of study have altered our lifestyles, we are nostalgic for the America of yesteryear. There was a time when people respected one another. Television personalities in particular were neutral, and appealed to a wider audience. Newscasters delivery of the news was objective. Our intelligence was respected, and no one tried to persuade us to lean right or left. We don't know what celebrity, and affluence does to many of these people today, but they appear to hate their country. We wonder if they realize that it is the same Constitution they disparage that guarantees them the right to speak freely, without consequences, no matter how obnoxious, crude, spiteful and venomous they become.
 
Ours is not a fatalistic view of America. It is a nostalgic one. Between us, we sisters have five children and six grandchildren. Our main concern and focus now is what kind of America we leave for them when we're gone. The thought of our offspring living in a Socialist society is frightening. The idea of their growing up in a divided America is inconceivable to us.  Our schools have stopped teaching the Constitution without a whimper from parents. It is time to think about the future generations of America. This is not the time to change or disregard the one document that has stood the test of time. Perhaps if our younger generations have to read it more often, they will have greater respect for the document that allows them to live in the freest society the world has ever known.
 
As persons to the right of the political spectrum, we are tired of defending our position. We don't apologize for loving our country and respecting the Constitution. Recently we read a headline, "The Constitution is not a sacred document." We disagree, it might not be gospel from God, but it was written by men who had a strong faith in Him and were inspired by Him. It is  not a sacred document in the religious sense, but is is revered and we must treat it with respect. Who can question the vision of the founding fathers who foresaw that others would come to these shores with different beliefs, and made provisions for their freedom?
 
No other country in the world has a Constitution like ours.  Many countries have tried to model their constitution after it, but no one has duplicated it. It is the oldest written constitution of any country in the world that is still in use.  Our Constitution is unique in that the Founding Fathers perceived that in the future there might be a need to change it, amend it, and they wrote provisions in it to do just that.  Our Constitution has been amended twenty seven times.  The first ten amendments of the Constitution are commonly known as The Bill of Rights.  It is interesting that our present Attorney General, Eric Holder is now questioning the constitutionality of the second amendment. 
 
When the 112th Congress decided to begin its first session with a reading of the entire Constitution of the United states, there were some very disturbing comments made by some elected officials.  Some even boycotted the opening day because they thought it was "posturing by Republicans."  We wonder how many of those who objected have ever read the entire Constitution.  In fact we question how many of those present today had ever read it or heard it read completely.  Perhaps  after today's reading the complete disregard for the Constitution which has taken place during the last two years will come to halt.
 
Even through our nostalgia, we know that there is no turning back the hands of time.  We cannot return to the America that was, but we can look to the future with expectancy and confidence for an even better and brighter America. Today was a good beginning.  Democrats and Republicans reading the Constitution together was "cooperative statesmanship."  Our political parties  will always have differences, especially in ideology. We won't always agree on policy and decisions, but if we put country before party we have a chance of succeeding. 
 
Another of our favorite quotes comes not from one of the founders, but from Abraham Lincoln whose presidency was fraught with strife, dissent, and war.  In 1858, Lincoln was seeking his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate.  As he addressed the Illinois State Republican  Convention he said,  "A house divided against itself cannot stand,"  "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."  Lincoln of course was addressing the issue of slavery, but we feel that his words are applicable to the partisanship that engulfs and cripples our government today. 
 
We are living in an uncertain world.  Never, in our lifetime has our country been so vulnerable, so frail.  We, however, are more fortunate than most.  We have been given a system of government that has endured many catastrophes.  We are blessed to live in a nation that is still free after nearly two hundred and forty years in existence, and we have been given a framework of government that is unequaled in the history of the world:  The United States Constitution.  Support and defend it, so help us God!

CHANGE IT BACK

The problem that most troubles Americans at the present time is the economy.  As long as people are not going back to work there will not be any chance to recover from this financial crisis. Another great concern is the size of government, and too much government control in our lives.  As much as we detest ObamaCare, and wish to see its repeal, we have to face the fact that the task that the new GOP House have set for themselves is not an easy one. 

Back when the Democratic majority was ramming ObamaCare down our throats,  Nancy Pelosi said something to the effect that "we must pass the bill to know what is in it."  We all scoffed, and we were angry that they were passing a 2,000 page bill that few, if any, had bothered to read.  Our question  now is, have WE read the entire bill?  Do WE know the complexities of repealing it?  How do we feel about the issue of unemployment vs repeal?

Yes, ObamaCare, as it is written, must either be completely changed or repealed.  We've already begun to feel it's adverse effects, it's constraints on our pocketbook.  But, a wise voter is well informed.  Let us take the time to read what conservative experts have to say on the issue.  We don't want to rush into a drastic move that will leave the GOP with egg on its face.  What we need from this 112th Congress is incremental successes.  Do the doable.  Set the stage for a huge GOP victory in 2012.


We advice that all read Paul Ryan's Road Map for America.  A lot of the footwork has already been done.  If we fail in the next two years, we will not succeed in 2012.  By reading some of the comments to articles we've red, we have the feeling that many of our fellow conservatives believe that repealing Obama care is as simple as 1, 2, 3.  We would like to see the new Republican congress undo much of what the Obama administration has done. Change it back! 

The new Congress started out on the right foot today by giving the Constitution of the United States its rightful place by having it read.    As they were sworn in, the new Congress took an oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States.  That is an Oath Liberals took and now seem to have forgotten.  Our newly elected officials, the Speaker, and the Majority Whip, have a long road to haul ahead of them.  The must get Americans back to work, cut back spending, give control back to the states and the people, and begin to repeal that outrage they call a health care bill.


Below is a very thoughtful explanation on how to approach the ending of ObamaCare. It is one step in taking our country back, but it is not the only one.   Please take the time to read it.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE

Obamacare: The End of the Beginning
by Avik Roy
January 5, 2011 4:00 A.M.

For the foreseeable future, health care must be the dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.
Sixty-eight years ago, after a long-sought victory in Egypt that marked a turning point in World War II, Winston Churchill said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”


In what will be a long and arduous struggle to bring fiscal stability and true reform to our tottering health-care system, partial Republican control of Congress was a necessary first step. But, now, the hard work begins.


The Republican health-care platform, such as it is, is pretty simple: Repeal Obamacare and replace it with incremental, common-sense, politically popular reforms. The GOP’s “Pledge to America” may therefore have been an appropriate platform for a midterm election. However, the document barely begins to address the profound and difficult issues that any serious government must. Indeed, if the early signals are any indication, the troubling reality is that the Republican health-care agenda for 2011 and 2012 may actually make it harder to repeal Obamacare in 2013, and thereby harder to achieve conservatives’ long-term goal of a humane, efficient, and fiscally sustainable health-care system.

The best way to grasp the enormous difficulties ahead is to work backwards.


Runaway growth in government spending is America’s biggest fiscal problem today. Growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending, in turn, accounts for nearly all the projected future growth in government outlays relative to GDP. If the principal domestic-policy goal of conservatives is to restore the country to a truly limited government that can live within its means, we can achieve that goal only through serious and thoughtful reform of health-care entitlements.

That is to say: For the foreseeable future, health care must become the single dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.


Hence, our first and most important problem is intellectual. Conservatives speak often of repealing and replacing Obamacare. But how many can articulate a conservative vision of what our health-care system should look like? Leading Republican politicians have plenty of detailed opinions on a broad range of subjects. But does anyone know what John Boehner’s vision is for the future of American health care? How about the main contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination? To ask the question is to answer it.


FREEDOM, SECURITY, AND INNOVATION
It should be said that, within the diminutive circle of conservative health-policy wonks, there is a fair amount of agreement as to where we should go. But translating that wonkery into plain English isn’t easy.


Among less specialized conservatives, a common refrain is, “I’m not clear on the details, but that Paul Ryan sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.” And Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan is indeed a solid start. But unless other Republican leaders fully immerse themselves in health-care policy, they will be able neither to articulate the core principles of free-market health care, nor to address new issues as they arise, nor to persuade American voters that they should be trusted to enact far-reaching reforms.


The core health-care principles that Republicans should embrace can be summarized in three words: freedom, security, and innovation.

First, the conservative vision must, out of both principle and pragmatism, hold that the best health-care system is one that trusts individuals to make the choices that are best for them and their families. The liberal view of health care is the opposite: that individuals are neither knowledgeable enough nor wise enough to make health-care decisions for themselves; instead, these decisions are best left to unelected government experts.

Second, conservatives must stand firmly behind the principle of a safety net for those who are genuinely down on their luck, and also for the principle that those who pay for insurance and play by the rules will get the care that they’ve earned, without losing out on technicalities. Liberals might agree rhetorically with these principles, but they use them as a pretext for expanding the entitlement state, with destructive effects: extension of government insurance to those who don’t need it, at a cost the country can’t afford, and strangulation of private insurers with onerous regulations that the market can’t sustain.

Third, conservatives must always keep in mind that the entire point of health care is to extend and enhance life. Thus their vision can include, but must be broader than, the hot-button issues of abortion and stem-cell research. A pro-life health-care policy involves accelerating the pace of medical innovation, by reducing the regulatory and financial burdens we place on the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. That means strengthening the influence of market forces, as opposed to subsidies and price controls, on the development of drugs and devices. It also means streamlining the FDA so that innovative new therapies can reach the market more quickly and cheaply. It means minimizing, and if possible eliminating, the ability of federal bureaucrats to deny life-extending care.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to look askance at medical innovation. Most progressive health-care economists blame new medical technologies for rising health-care costs: costs that can, in their view, be lowered only by restricting patients’ access to those technologies. In addition, new drugs and medical technologies are developed by private companies, for profit: a concept to which many on the Left are instinctively hostile.

Health-care policy is exceedingly complex, and translating these basic principles of freedom, security, and innovation into actual legislation will not be easy. Doing so must start with three policy goals.

First, Republicans must foster a truly free market for health insurance by eliminating the differing tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually purchased insurance. Second, Republicans must make dramatic improvements to Medicaid, using Mitch Daniels’s impressive reforms in Indiana as a template. Third, Republicans must move Medicare onto a sustainable path that puts financial control in the hands of seniors themselves rather than central planners.

On all three fronts, Obamacare moves us in exactly the opposite direction. The law will force employers to provide insurance for their employees, instead of allowing them to leave that money in their employees’ paychecks so that they can buy insurance for themselves. The law will dramatically expand Medicaid in ways that will accelerate the pending bankruptcy of several large states, even though Medicaid provides far worse care than people can obtain on their own. And the law will effectively eliminate Medicare Advantage and other programs that helped move Medicare from its traditional single-payer approach into a more market-oriented one.

THE OBAMACARE TRAP
And so, it remains true that the most critical task for Republicans in the 112th Congress is to lay the groundwork for the ultimate repeal of Obamacare. Given that House Republicans don’t have the power to repeal the law by themselves, what can they do in the meantime? More importantly, what should they do in the meantime? The question has been asked, but it hasn’t been adequately answered.

We must remind ourselves of the electoral realities. For Republicans to succeed in repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), they will need to control the House, the Senate, and the White House. From a political standpoint, if Republicans are not able to achieve this in 2012, they are unlikely ever to repeal Obamacare.

Read the rest of the article here>>

— Avik Roy is an equity research analyst at Monness, Crespi, Hardt & Co. in New York City. He blogs on health-care issues at The Apothecary.

The Freshman Class of the 112th Congress

The Freshman Class of the 112th Congress, January 3, 2011

Symbols of the GOP and The Class of 2011

Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, 112th Congress Speaker of the House, John Boehmer, 112th Congress Majority Leader Eric Cantor

Feel good pictures all, are they not?  Then why do we have a nagging feeling that all is not quite right?

We've spent a good part of today watching the news on television, and listening to debates and predictions from journalists and politicians.  One would believe that the agenda for the upcoming 112th Congress is clear, cut and dry.  The Democrats who were in power suffered their worst political defeat in sixty years.   America's "silent majority" found its voice and in a grass roots movement called The (Second) Tea Party, made their wishes known.  It wasn't all demonstrations, rallies, and flag waving.  On November 2, 2010,  they went to the polls in droves, and they sent Washington, and specifically the Obama administration a message that no one could misunderstand. It endorsed reduced government spending, lower taxes, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.  Fiscal responsibility, that is not too difficult to comprehend. Yet many Democrats are argumentative and belligerent.

Sister One attended the first Tea Party at the Alamo in San Antonio when people like Glenn Beck, Janine Turner, and Ted Nugent inspired the crowd with patriotic fervor and enthusiasm.  Not only were the speeches stirring, but the signs that people carried expressed their feelings clearly, passionately, and in many cases humorously.  The intensity and passion of the Tea Party movement spread throughout the country.  As it did, liberals mocked, comedians joked, and  Nancy Pelosi called the grassroots movement, "AstroTurf."  The fetid, foul mouthed Janeanne Garofalo called the American patriots a sordid name that was soon picked up by others.  One wondered how long the movement would last.

We learned never to underestimate the determination of the American people, nor their love for the Constitution of the United States, our freedom, our sovereignty and our republic.

Recently we've heard liberals curse the Constitution, refer to it as an old document, hard to read and to understand.  We've seen the Obama administration disregard the Constitution.  In just the past day Attorney General, Eric Holder, has stated that he does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms.  Excuse us for asking, but "Who do these people think they are?"  Did they really believe that they could come into power and change our America?  Is this what the "Hope and Change" was all about? We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Any school child can tell you that The Constitution is the highest law in the United States. All other laws come from the Constitution. It says how the government works. It creates the Presidency. It creates the Congress. It creates the Supreme Court. Each state also has a constitution. The constitutions of the states are their highest law for that state — but the United States Constitution is higher.  If a child can recite this, why can't these men with law degrees remember it?

It is is not ignorance, or lack of education.  It is merely a power grab by left leaning liberals funded and backed by scum like George Soros who hate America and want to destroy it.  These people  will persevere in their evil intent.  It is heartbreaking to see out country, once the greatest and most envied and admired world power, lose the respect of its allies and its enemies.

Which brings us to today, and those photos of smiling Republicans ready to take on the duties of the 112th Congress.  It also brings us to the feelings of uneasiness that the battle we face will be a difficult one, and we must be vigilant, but patient, with those whom we've sent to Washington to represent us.

We understand that on January 6th, when the 112th Congress comes to order, The Constitution of the United States will be read in its entirety.  We applaud those who came to this decision.  We encourage all to read it again.  We also encourage patience and understanding.  There will be times we need to compromise and consider what is best for the country and the American people.  Unless we see the GOP stray from the mandate they've been given, and roll over for Democrats as others who went before them have done, we must give them our trust and our support. Let us give them time to find their way, to learn the ropes, and always make our wishes known and stay in touch with our congressmen.  As Thomas Jefferson said in June of 1798:  " A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles."