Not All Conservatives Thrilled About Romney VP Pick

[bigrebnc1775]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- He's been in Congress for nearly 13 years, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has only seen two of his bills pass into law during that time.

Ryan, who Mitt Romney has tapped as his running mate, passed a bill into law in July 2000 that renames a post office in his district. Thanks to Ryan, the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building."

The other time Ryan saw one of his bills become law was in December 2008, with legislation to change the way arrows (as in bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also "includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and accessories."

Kevin Seifert, Ryan's congressional spokesman, did not respond to a request for comment.

Paul Ryan Only Passed 2 Bills Into Law In More Than A Decade

Were they good bills or bills with a lot of pork and wasteful spending?

 

[Too Tall]

Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

DETAILS: Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

When a budget resolution is NOT passed by the deadline, the government gets shutdown, so the House and a few Republicans go along with it.

 

[there4eyeM]

"I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love." –Mitt Romney (January 2012)

It is difficult to argue with that. (!)

Give the politicians a bit of slack, however. They may think that, with enough effort, they can appear on SNL.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When is Obama going to shut down Congress? And declare his self the king of the United states.

He seems to be able to do anything he wants by his pen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget

Republicans have relentlessly harangued the Senate's Democratic leadership for failing to pass a budget resolution. "1,000 days without a budget," was the title of a typical missive last month. On the weekend Jack Lew, who has just been named Barack Obama's chief of staff after serving as his budget director, defended the Senate by saying it couldn't pass a budget without 60 votes, i.e. without the cooperation of some Republicans. Republicans jumped on Mr Lew, pointing out that under Congress' budget procedure, a budget resolution cannot be filibustered and thus only needs a simple majority vote - typically 51 votes - to pass. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's fact checker, awarded Mr Lew four Pinocchios, the top score, for fibbing.

In fact, Mr Lew, while wrong on the narrow wording, is right on the substance. It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate. Only someone intimately familiar with Parliamentary procedure can explain this. Jim Horney of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is such a person. The following are his edited remarks from our email conversation:

DETAILS: Parliamentary procedure: Why the Senate hasn't passed a budget | The Economist

Question for you
If the republicans tried too over turn roe vs Wade and added it to a jobs bill that would spring the economy to life would you want the democrats to sign onto that bill or would you want to have it stopped even though the bill would create a healthy economy.

 

[Stephanie]

LOL, someones having a friggen meltdown right before our eyes

poor lakhota

 

[editec]

Ryan still another pampered chickenhawking scion of the GOP.

He really is a perfect candidate for the party he represents.

 

[Mac1958]

The Ryan Medicare voucher plan would allow private health insurance companies to cherry pick the most healthy seniors, leaving least healthy seniors in government Medicare - which would make it unsustainable and wreck it. Hence, leaving the least healthy seniors out in the cold. Sooo, the video showing granny being thrown off the cliff still applies.

Actually, no. From Ryan's site:

All health plans that participate in the Medicare Exchange, including the traditional Medicare option, would be required to offer insurance to all seniors – regardless of age and health status – thereby preventing insurers from cherry picking only the healthiest seniors for coverage under their plan. Additionally, the federal contribution to seniors’ health plans would be increased to account for a senior’s health status and age.

Should be interesting to watch Ryan respond to all these kinds of charges. I have to admit I was believing them at first, too.

.

Is there anything controlling how much insurance companies can charge? Doesn't do any good to have a plan nobody can afford.

He has it based on the Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement model, so this would just be an expansion with some federal low-income assistance. Right now there are several Medicare Advantage plans that fill most of the gaps left by Medicare and charge less than $20 per month (examples are United, Humana and Kaiser) - and that's without much help with macro cost control. Insurance companies can do that because they're efficient with a dollar, but also because they have a hand in the health care delivery process.

It's not a binary issue. Along with this, health care costs have to be both mitigated on the top end and decreased on the back. I haven't waded through the whole plan, but I know Ryan has strategies to do that. Actually, they're not really his ideas, there's a thousand cost control ideas out there, but unfortunately our "leaders" can't quite get to them because they're too busy fundraising and insulting the other "side".

I don't like Obamacare, and I'm not real thrilled with Ryan's plan. What I would like to see has not been proposed by either side. But the scare tactics being used by the Democrats, as predictable as they are, are not honest. Well, they're lies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's okay - is this a good time for lies?

The post to which I responded was absolutely incorrect, yet it and many others like it will be used non-stop and quite shamelessly until election day, and I hate to see that kind of stuff. We're lying ourselves over a fucking cliff.

At precisely what point to we begin being honest? When we're in ashes?

.

 

[Wolfsister77]

I'm sure you can link us to that statement...

Give it your best shot...

Yes I can, tomorrow. I will come back and give several good links for anything you want me to. Just let me know which ones and I'll come back.

If you could be so kind as to provide the charity link, I'd like to see that.

Goodnight!!

Arthur C. Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out ""Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism"

Sure, I'll look at it. Why not? Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Jackson]

If Ryan is a bad VP pick, What is Biden?

 

[The Rabbi]

With the Romney/Ryan ticket I would suggest Republicans pursue their "don't let em vote" program with greater earnest.

No, that's the Democrats, with their campaign to disenfracnchise military voters in Ohio. The same military Obama has sent into futile wars for 3 years now, that he claims are fighting for him.

 

[Seawytch]

But the scare tactics being used by the Democrats, as predictable as they are, are not honest. Well, they're lies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's okay - is this a good time for lies?

And the scare tactics used by Republicans aren't? Death Panels? Government takeover? Puhleese.

No, Ryan's plan won't "end" Medicare...It will just end Medicare as we know it.

 

[Mac1958]

But the scare tactics being used by the Democrats, as predictable as they are, are not honest. Well, they're lies. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's okay - is this a good time for lies?

And the scare tactics used by Republicans aren't? Death Panels? Government takeover? Puhleese.

No, Ryan's plan won't "end" Medicare...It will just end Medicare as we know it.

Agreed, the Republicans are lying too. They're half the problem. No argument there.

We need to end Medicare as we know it. I think we all know that. The question is how. Medicare makes the Social Security problem look like a trip to the park.

I answered your question.

.

 

[Greenbeard]

Actually, Ryan's plan allows people to keep medicare as is. They just would have options that give people control of their own health instead of leaving it to government control.Thus allowing us not to go bankrupt.

You say "actually" as though you've contradicted the point in the OP.

The plan Republicans voted for lock-step last year did not allow future seniors the choice of Medicare. That was softened this year because it's an election year.

Do you want folks to bank on Republicans pursuing the more moderate approach should they gain control of Congress and the Presidency next year? Because for the life of me, I can't figure out why moderation is a plausible expectation of a GOP Congress.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Incredible.

The Democrats admit that Medicare needs to be changed. But they scream about "ending Medicare as we know it." Well, that's what change is. If the Democrats change Medicare in their way, they're also "ending Medicare as we know it."

My head is about to explode. This is madness. I think I'll go to the office now.

.

 

[Liability]

Paul Ryan’s Original Medicare Plan Ends Medicare, Period

^ False.

It does not.

Doing nothing (also known as the Obama "plan") WILL, however, terminate Medicare.

Period.

 

[Jackson]

By Ian Millhiser

In April of 2011, after Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan had been House Budget Chair for only a few months, he convinced nearly the entire House GOP caucus to vote for a laissez-faire budget resolution that would slash education, raise taxes on the middle class, and destroy Medicaid’s promise to provide health care to the most vulnerable Americans. Like his running mate Mitt Romney’s tax plan, the Ryan Plan also combined austerity for the poor and the middle class with large tax cuts for the rich.

The Ryan Plan that passed the House in 2011 is most famous, however, for its multiple step plan to phase out Medicare. Let us say that again so we are perfectly clear about what the Ryan Plan does to Medicare. It does not just “end Medicare as we know it” and it certainly does not “reform” Medicare.” The Ryan Plan simply ends Medicare, although it admittedly takes some time for it to achieve this goal.

More w/Chart (worth reading): Paul Ryan's Original Medicare Plan Ends Medicare, Period | ThinkProgress

The original plan is off the table.

 

[JoeB131]

.

I think for sure he'll score a few points on likeability, the question will be how effective he can be at communicating budgetary matters. The Democrats will be hammering on the emotional side from here on in, so we'll see if he can cut through. He's the anti-Romney personality-wise, though, that has to help.

.

BUt again, if people are more excited about your vice-presidential pick than your presidential nominee, you have a serious problem.

 

[Greenbeard]

. But they scream about "ending Medicare as we know it." Well, that's what change is.

I've never seen the need for the "as we know it" qualifier.

Forbidding future enrollment in Medicare would end the program.

 

[Greenbeard]

Doing nothing (also known as the Obama "plan") WILL, however, terminate Medicare.

The alternative approach has never been to do nothing.