The Ryan pick

Well, Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential candidate was probably a safer choice than Sarah Palin was in 2008 and those of us who are Miami University graduates are thrilled to have a fellow alum with a chance at the second-highest office in the land. (He graduated six years after me, so we weren’t on campus at the same time.) But there are some who are fretting that Paul Ryan’s not conservative enough or too much of an establishment choice. Personally, I thought Lt. Col. Allen West would have been an interesting selection.

Yet you can’t deny that Paul Ryan knows his stuff about budgeting, and even though I was disappointed that his budget blueprint took decades to work the federal budget into balance it was at least acknowledging the largest domestic problem we face. Hopefully we elect a number of good conservatives to the House and Senate to pick up Ryan’s pace of motion toward fiscal sanity.

And Democrats naturally tried to seize the narrative. This e-mail blast came from David Axelrod:

In Ryan, Romney has selected a running mate best known for designing the extreme GOP budget that would end Medicare as we know it, and — just like Romney’s plan — actually raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for an additional $250,000 tax break for millionaires and billionaires. As a leader of the House Republicans and a Tea Party favorite, Congressman Ryan has led the relentless, intensely ideological battle for these kinds of budget-busting policies that punish seniors and the middle class.

Today, Romney doubled down on those policies.

But most Americans don’t know Paul Ryan. In the coming days, the other side will spend a lot of time trying to define Romney’s choice and what it says about his candidacy — so we put together a brand-new website on Romney-Ryan with everything you need to know. (Emphasis in original.)

But I love this howler in Axelrod’s screed:

Ryan talks tough on balancing the budget, but his own plan would fail to do that for a generation. The burden of balancing any Ryan budget falls squarely on the backs of seniors and middle-class families — while no one at the top is asked to pay even a dollar more.

And Obama has made progress on balancing the budget when? Please inform me of this, Mr. Axelrod.

To Obama, a budget deficit is a small price to pay for maintaining the levers of power and “spreading the wealth around.” That argument of “no one at the top is asked to pay even a dollar more” conveniently forgets that the wealthiest taxpayers already pay more than their fair share and, even if they were taxed at 100 percent and all their assets seized, wouldn’t come close to solving the total indebtedness (including unfunded liabilities) of our nation. That’s what happens when the national debt exceeds annual GDP.

And it’s sort of funny that the Obama crew has dubbed Romney/Ryan the “Go Back Team.” I wouldn’t mind going back to unemployment under 5 percent and a shrinking annual budget deficit – how about you? America has two choices: it can fall for the class envy propagated by a current regime desperate to avoid discussion of its real record, or it can vote for a chance at a way out of our mess.

If Obama wins, it’s likely we will never see unemployment below 5 percent again unless they change the way the numbers are calculated to make “President Choom” look better. Nor will we come anywhere close to a balanced budget because that’s not what this administration wants – I’ve become convinced they’re looking to hook as many people on the narcotic of government handouts as possible, and even if taxes are raised on the wealthiest taxpayers (and they would be) what little benefit is accrued will be far less than the new spending desired.

It’s the sign of a campaign which can’t rely on the exhausted mantras of hope and change anymore that they immediately go on the attack. Quite simply, Obama and Biden have nothing good to say about themselves or a positive record to defend. It’s going to be a long 2 1/2 months to Election Day.

“You’re not defeated as long as you never stop fighting.”

The title of this post came from the first line of an e-mail I received from what I guess would now be considered The Cain Solutions. It was his explanation to supporters about his next steps in a continuing campaign to reshape America.

Rather than repost the entire essay here I want to focus on three passages, with the first being his reaction to the establishment.

…I knew the establishment would not like the idea of my success, because I will not get along by going along like so many do. I will not kick the can down the road to the next generation of leaders, because our problems are serious and they need to be solved now.

That threatens people who know there may be a political price to pay for enacting solutions that will work, and would rather wait things out and let someone else take the heat. That would not have been possible during a Cain presidency.

But if real solutions are achieved, it will not matter who achieved them.

This idea came from Reagan, who theorized that it didn’t matter who got the credit as long as the problem was solved. Obviously my view on that also comes from Ronald Reagan: “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” Too often the cure is worse than the disease once Washington gets a hold of it, and if Washington doesn’t mess it up we can always count on Annapolis, Dover, Richmond, or somewhere else from Augusta to Honolulu or Juneau to Tallahassee to botch it. But sometimes they get it right, which is why we have 50 states which should take the lead in being laboratories to come up with solutions which might – I repeat, might – work in certain situations.

Unfortunately, we as a society fall into the trap of allowing government to take the lead rather than be the last resort.

Continue reading ““You’re not defeated as long as you never stop fighting.””

If TEA is for ‘terrorist’ then what are R and D?

Joe Biden, king of the malaprop, now believes that TEA stands for “terrorist,’ as in “acting like terrorists.” Now we all know Joe is slow, but I seem to recall it stands for “Taxed Enough Already.”

However, in my case after the budget deal I may fall under “Totally Enraged American.”

After all, the “R” in Republican seemed to me to stand for “roll over” and the “D” in Democrat has been standing for “destroyer.” Maybe the extended version would be “destroyer of our Constitutional Republic” because they’re doing a damn fine job of that.

Now the Obama administration may have believed the debt crisis had passed and we gave him enough breathing room to get to 2013 before we have this debate again. But I think the way he’s spending – in a manner which puts drunken sailors to shame – he’s going to blow by that debt limit before the 2012 election.

Remember two things: in Washington, a “cut” is generally only a reduction in the amount of increase (except in defense, where fewer dollars are actually spent) and Democrats don’t bind themselves to promises they made. So they will figure out any number of ways to spend trillions more than we take in and I predict we’ll revisit this debate before November, 2012.

And if not, I sure as hell ain’t forgetting it. This budget deal is like the 9/11 of fiscal responsibility and I haven’t forgotten the original after nearly 10 years – so don’t expect me to just let this one go either. There’s a lot of people who voted the wrong way on this one, many of whom disappointed me by doing so.

In the end, though, I’m not angry – but I am determined. Freedom fighting isn’t an easy business but we’ll be back.

But I do have one question to ask of my friends across the border – what the heck did you see in Joe Biden to elect him in the first place? He’s like the ultimate insurance policy against Obama’s demise.

And people laughed at Dan Quayle? He may not spell ‘potato’ correctly but Dan’s a decent writer and I had the pleasure of meeting the man. Compared to Joe Biden, Dan Quayle looks like a champion on ‘Jeopardy.’

So just keep talking, Joe. Every time you open your mouth it’s another thousand votes for our side.