The Romney/Ryan Express

[Warph]

     

     

                "America's Comeback Team."

by Guy Benson & Aaron Goldstein

I must confess that I spent the afternoon putting together an article titled, "Why Romney Won't Pick Ryan".

Never have I been happier to be wrong.

By picking Ryan, Romney has both elevated and embraced one of the leadings lights of 21st century American conservatism. More than any other Republican, Ryan has articulated a spirited defense of the free market, fiscal responsibility, what limited government should like and how we pay for it.

By picking Ryan, Romney has shown he's not content to play it safe and willing to take a risk to win the election to restore America's greatness.

By picking Ryan, Romney has put Wisconsin in play.

By picking Ryan, Romney has chosen a running mate that has gone toe to toe with President Obama and got the better of him as was the case during the 2010 Health Care Summit in Washington, D.C. When Obama publicly insulted Ryan to his face during a 2011 speech at Georgetown University, Ryan called an impromptu press conference and said, "Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells." Ryan strikes fear in the heart of Obama.

By picking Ryan, Romney may force Obama to drop Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton or some other more formidable opponent because Ryan would wipe the floor with Biden in a debate.

By picking Ryan, Romney has kept the future of American conservatism alive for years to come and may have also picked a future President.
I must confess that I spent the afternoon putting together an article titled, "Why Romney Won't Pick Ryan".

Never have I been happier to be wrong.

By picking Ryan, Romney has both elevated and embraced one of the leadings lights of 21st century American conservatism. More than any other Republican, Ryan has articulated a spirited defense of the free market, fiscal responsibility, what limited government should like and how we pay for it.

By picking Ryan, Romney has shown he's not content to play it safe and willing to take a risk to win the election to restore America's greatness.

By picking Ryan, Romney has put Wisconsin in play.

By picking Ryan, Romney has chosen a running mate that has gone toe to toe with President Obama and got the better of him as was the case during the 2010 Health Care Summit in Washington, D.C. When Obama publicly insulted Ryan to his face during a 2011 speech at Georgetown University, Ryan called an impromptu press conference and said, "Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells." Ryan strikes fear in the heart of Obama.

By picking Ryan, Romney may force Obama to drop Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton or some other more formidable opponent because Ryan would wipe the floor with Biden in a debate.

By picking Ryan, Romney has kept the future of American conservatism alive for years to come and may have also picked a future President.

Any way you slice it, this is a game-changer. As I wrote earlier this week, Paul Ryan is one of the sunniest, most likeable conservatives on the scene today. He's also the party's top wonk and is completely fluent in fiscal issues. I predict that Democrats will publicly gloat over this pick ("he'll be so easy to demonize!"), even as they privately worry. Paul Ryan is earnest, smart, articulate, attractive, calm, good-humored, and exceptionally gifted in explaining his case in persuasive and unthreatening terms. He's from the Midwest, has blue collar appeal (unlike Romney, he did not grow up wealthy), and has a beautiful young family. The Left will launch vicious and totally dishonest attacks, as they have throughout the last two years of budget debates. But never before has Paul Ryan enjoyed a larger platform from which to make his case to the American public: The country is going broke, a fiscal calamity awaits, but we can avoid it if we take responsible, urgent action. This campaign is about to get a major (and needed) injection of seriousness.

It's time to brush up on Paul Ryan's budget -- on what it does and does not propose. Let's also recall that Ryan's bipartisan Medicare reform (which he co-authored with liberal Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden) does not affect anyone over the age of 55. Period. This message will need to be hammered in multiple ads and played on a loop in Florida, as "scare granny" tactics from Democrats will be off the charts. Medicare's own bookkeepers warn that the program will be insolvent within 12 years without meaningful reforms. Barack Obama has no plan on this front, aside from robbing $500 Billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and empowering an unelected panel of bureaucrats to ration care. Paul Ryan is very adept at making this case, and every bit of that skill will be essential over the coming three months. Barack Obama's reckless budgets have been unanimously defeated for two consecutive years, and the Senate has not produced a budget in over 1,200 days. The president -- by his own administration's admission -- has no plan to deal with our long term debt, which threatens to swallow our economy and change the very nature of the American idea. Whether we like it or not, this is a debate America must have. Paul Ryan is one of the very best -- if not the best -- conservative communicators on the biggest issue of our time. Buckle up, guys. This is going to get intense.

[Warph]

     

Who Built America?
By Rep. Paul Ryan on 8.13.12 @ 6:15AM


The rebuilding begins this November.

President Obama recently made a stunning remark about business owners in America's free enterprise economy. After dismissing the hard work and ingenuity of successful individuals, the president said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Who? Ultimately, the government.

Yet this was only the latest version of the president's four-year disparagement of American entrepreneurialism. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said he intended to "spread the wealth around" -- not his own wealth through voluntary transactions, of course, but the earnings belonging to American families through coercive redistribution. In April 2009, he claimed that the founding principles on which America was built are too weak to withstand 21st century pressures. He called our free economy a house built upon sand, destroyed when the financial storm of 2008 hit. America must be reconstructed, he asserted, upon a "new foundation" of "pillars" hewn from the solid rock of big government.

The agenda he promoted demonstrated in a practical way what his rhetoric meant. He pushed unprecedented stimulus spending, a government-driven health care overhaul, further distortions in the U.S. financial sector, an expensive cap-and-trade system to restrict American energy, and more. His transformative proposals were based on a vision of a government-centered society that conflicts with the foundational principles of freedom and equality rooted in our Declaration of Independence. To support his expansive new vision of government without limits, the administration sent Congress four massive annual budgets that called for crushing levels of debt. The Democrat-controlled Senate, cognizant of the political peril of voting for such reckless spending, taxes, and new debt, gave up on budgeting altogether. The U.S. Senate unanimously rejected Obama's budgets, without passing any budget of its own for over three years.

The failed leadership and the dismal results from a president of such great promise have been disappointing. The moment of truth in front of us is of course not entirely his fault. Both political parties have failed the American people over the years, and both political parties have -- time and again -- prioritized political gain at the expense of principle. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity in the year ahead to chart a new course, build a broad coalition for reforms that apply our timeless principles to today's most pressing challenges. It begins by reclaiming the core of what makes America exceptional: our commitment to freedom.

Economic freedom empowers entrepreneurs who have ideas and imagination, investors who take risks, and workers who hone their skills and offer their labor. Our exceptional country was built with the ingenuity, capital, and sweat contributed by individuals who risked it all to provide a brighter future for their families. America was founded on the shared belief that government's primary role is to safeguard our God-given freedoms, as individual initiative and a strong civil society are what make prosperity possible. America is exceptional for this very reason: No other country in the history of mankind was founded on such a powerful idea.

The president's policies have stifled this commitment to economic freedom, which has resulted in millions of Americans facing painful economic hardships. In the president's revealing rhetoric, we gain insight into why the economy remains so anemic and the future looks so bleak: Success is a function of government beneficence, not individual initiative.

His outlook not only makes for terrible economics, it also reveals moral confusion. The question that separates the prevailing sentiment in Washington from that of our Founders is a moral one: freedom and individual initiative, or big government alternatives?

President Obama's comments reflect an ideology that casts the private sector as an arena driven by greed and indifference to the well-being of others. In government-directed economies, the collective takes priority over the individual. The moral ideal is equal results.

Enforcing this contorted view of equality requires sharp class division -- the wealthy versus the middle class versus the poor. In this narrative, success is a zero-sum game. There is only so much wealth to go around, and one person's gain is another's loss.

The ideology of classes in historically inevitable conflict has never fit the reality of America. Our free and open economy works because the amount of wealth is not fixed. It grows with hard work, investment, and saving; all can prosper. Unlike in the European vision of big government, prosperity in America requires limits on the size and scope of the state, to ensure that no group faces government-imposed barriers to its opportunity to rise. America's Founders wrote our Constitution of self-government and limited powers to protect our natural rights and foster a level playing, so all could freely pursue their happiness.

Embracing the politics of class division, President Obama's principal solution to the nation's fiscal and economic problems is to raise the barriers to success with higher tax rates and greater centralized control over our economy. As a fiscal and an economic matter, the argument unravels as he remains unable to explain how the tax increases he's put forward can ever catch the spending increases ahead, and how such polices improve incentives for entrepreneurial investment and job development. Given such problematic realities, his appeal is more often moral in nature. Higher taxes are our patriotic duty. We're all in this together. Forcing the rich to pay their "fair share" is the right thing to do. Yet, on moral grounds, the president's argument cannot withstand scrutiny.

Every successful individual knows that his or her achievement requires a community of persons working together. We strengthen our bonds with each other as we offer our unique gifts to others. Customers reward the best and most efficient producers by buying their products and services. We work to advance the common good through our free association with each other, not because a coercive government directs our actions. Each human being has inherent dignity and unique gifts. Individuals thrive as they voluntarily share those gifts and talents with each other, in mutual assistance to meet their neighbors' needs. We could never do this if we were isolated individuals as caricatured in the president's distorted view of America's commitment to free enterprise.

Of course government has a critical role to play in establishing neutral rules that enable open competition, and in securing peace and order with courts, a standard currency, defense forces, first responders, teachers, infrastructure, and a safety net for the most vulnerable. Government can help create the space for innovation and prosperity, but government can not fill that space. Activist government overreach and ongoing economic stagnation have shown us why Washington should never try to displace what is best left to civil society.

There are pernicious side effects from Washington's ever-increasing intrusion into sectors of our economy and into aspects of our lives. Big-government economics breeds crony capitalism. It's corrupt, anything but neutral, and a barrier to broad participation in prosperity. Both political parties have been guilty of this trend. Most recently, Washington has pursued polices that pick winners and losers in specific sectors of our economy, and that favor well-connected corporations and union bosses with bureaucratic access, tax loopholes, and regulatory waivers. Think Solyndra, bankrupt after a $500 million taxpayer guarantee, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which continue to stifle the recovery while draining billions from the Treasury.

The moral case for individual initiative in a free economy holds that people have a God-given right to use their creativity to produce things that improve their lives. A free economy and strong communities honor the dignity of every person, reward effort with justice, promote upward mobility, and build solidarity among citizens. The president's vision of a collective, government-centered society -- reflected in his troubling rhetoric and failed policies -- divides class against class and belittles fair rewards for workers, entrepreneurs, and investors -- those who have built America into the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

We face a defining choice in November. For four more dreary years, President Obama will pursue his economically and morally bankrupt approach -- if we let him. Governor Romney, on the other hand, has embraced the vision of our exceptional nation, which Americans have always held, to guide our policies in the 21st century. He will follow a better path, consistent with the timeless truths of our nation's founding. A Romney administration would not put its faith in nameless government officials, but would trust persons and communities to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future.

We don't need to change the nature of America. We do not need to disparage our success, deny our exceptionalism, or transform America. We need to recommit to our founding principles and rebuild what has been broken. The comeback begins this November.

[Warph]

Romney: Obama fosters 'culture of dependency'The Washington Times
by: Seth McLaughlin
Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/romney-obama-fosters-culture-of-dependency#ixzz23UCOzRXt

Republican challenger Mitt Romney said Tuesday that President Obama is "encouraging a culture of dependency" by gutting the work requirement in the landmark federal welfare reform law, and his campaign went a step further, saying the White House overstepped its legal authority last month to issue waivers of the law to the states.

Speaking at a campaign stop in the Chicago suburbs, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said the administration's announcement that states would be eligible to receive waivers letting them modify the law's work requirements for aid recipients undercuts the intent of the law that Mr. Obama's Democratic predecessor, President Clinton, signed in 1996.

"President Obama in just the last few days has tried to reverse that accomplishment by taking the work requirement out of welfare," Mr. Romney said. "That is wrong. If I'm president, I'll put work back in welfare."

The White House called the attack "categorically false" and said the announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services was designed to give states flexibility to write their work requirements for those on welfare — something they said several Republican governors have requested.

Read more: http://times247.com/articles/romney-obama-fosters-culture-of-dependency#ixzz23UBwOllQ

[Warph]

       

Paul Ryan: Mitt Romney's Line in the Sand
By David Limbaugh
8/14/2012

Mitt Romney has outdone himself in choosing Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate. The conservative base is ecstatic, and that will translate into voter intensity and high turnout.

Our country faces an unprecedented debt crisis, primarily driven by our entitlement programs. We have more than $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities -- a staggering, incomprehensible number -- and we are on a collision course with national bankruptcy.

Obama has offered no solutions; his Democratic majority in the Senate has failed to produce a budget in 1,200 days; and they have both obstructed the Republicans' proposed remedies. It's as if it's a game with these people and our crushing national debt is but a trifling matter.

Obama is not only obstructing budget reform; it's almost as if he is trying to make matters worse. He has added a new major entitlement, Obamacare, and has continued to amass annual budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and his latest 10-year budget revealed he would continue to do so. Instead of reducing spending, he has demanded yet more "stimulus" spending and is ushering in the largest tax increase in U.S. history, which is guaranteed to further smother growth and probably worsen our debt problem.

Not too many years ago, both parties acknowledged that our entitlement commitments were a sword hanging over our heads. But when President George W. Bush tried to begin discussions on Social Security reform, Democrats ridiculed and demonized him and told seniors he was after their nest eggs.

But in 2008, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., dared to make the third rail of politics his calling card and to serve it up on the national stage. He presented a credible, comprehensive and workable plan to structurally reform entitlements.

Ryan earned national attention because he addressed the issues candidly, soberly and with such a command of the facts and attention to detail that Democrats couldn't shame him off the stage. Though he was calm in his presentation, he pulled no punches in warning that in the absence of major reforms, we would sustain a Greek-style financial collapse.

Ryan has been the Antiobama; he has provided the main adult leadership in the room, while Obama has been acting like a child in a candy store, spending every federal dollar he can get his hands on.

Ryan hasn't just provided issue papers; his plan was reduced to actual legislation and was passed in the House, only to be flatly rejected in the Democratic Senate and viciously and disingenuously mocked by President Obama.

Obama knows that Ryan has been his financial nemesis; he singled him out for ridicule during his farcical bipartisan health care summit. He has castigated Ryan during national speeches.

Ryan's inclusion on the GOP ticket guarantees that the financial issues threatening our republic today will remain front and center. As long as Ryan is around and playing a prominent role, Obama simply cannot effectively duck the issue.

Indeed, Romney's selection of Ryan signals his irrevocable commitment to tackling our entitlements problem and solving our financial crisis. It loudly signals that these issues, along with related economic issues, will be the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

It would have been easy for Romney to have avoided the entitlements issue, and some GOP advisers were urging him to do so, arguing it is a political loser because demagoguery will prevail over fiscal responsibility.

But Romney chose the path of statesmanship. He decided not to underestimate the American people and instead trusted that if properly informed, they would understand the gravity of the situation we face and support the right choices.

By choosing Ryan, Romney has drawn a bold line in the sand, telling the American people that his administration will tackle these problems no matter how much ridicule they receive from Obama and other Democrats.

Romney isn't promising to adopt Ryan's plan entirely, but it is obvious he embraces the underlying principles it contains: entitlement reform, discretionary spending reductions, a responsible national security budget and tax reform, which, when coupled with strong spending reductions, will lead to economic growth.

Obama has yet to present any semblance of a plan to reduce spending, restructure entitlements and bring our short- and long-term budgets into balance. He has offered only class warfare and fear-mongering.

The Ryan selection will force Obama and his party out of the closet and to offer some plan of their own instead of just ripping the Republicans' plans. It won't end the demagoguery, but it will smoke them out -- and expose the incoherence of their ideas.

Mitt Romney's best chance of winning this election is to draw the starkest of contrasts between his vision and Barack Obama's record. Choosing Paul Ryan was the best possible way to do that. Kudos to Mr. Romney. Game on.

[Warph]

                         

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Torches Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on Medicare Falsehoods
By Guy Benson
8/13/2012

         

Let me say this right up front: Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for being a relentless, responsible journalist. If you value the truth, this interview is a pleasure to watch. If you have even an ounce of human compassion for the in-over-her-head target of Blitzer's inquisition, it's positively brutal:

Poor Debbie. She's totally out-gunned and has nowhere to hide. Her talking points are pitifully hollow and cannot withstand even basic questioning. She stubbornly rejects the (correct) premise that the Romney/Ryan Medicare reform plan exempts everyone over the age of 54, and plays fast and loose with numbers -- conflating 55 and 65 on several occasions. When she is brow-beaten into finally acknowledging -- if not admitting -- the truth around the 3:45 mark, she quickly realizes her "mistake" and reverts back into denialism. When Blitzer asks her to specify exactly how current or soon-to-be seniors would be impacted by the GOP plan, she cannot. Because they're not. The Left is intellectually bankrupt on the very subject they claim will allow them to crush Mitt Romney in November. They despise the bipartisan solution Republicans have offered, but they have no alternative of their own.

Dear Democrats, Medicare is slated to go bankrupt in 2024. You say it's wrong for future seniors to be denied Medicare as it currently exists. Okay, what's your plan, guys? We know that your actions have already cut Medicare by $700 Billion to pay for part of Obamacare. We also know that Obamacare establishes a government panel to ration care for the elderly. And yet the 2024 deadline is still coming. Again, what's your plan, Democrats? Mr. President? Anyone? I confronted Wasserman Schutlz on this very question last summer, and she gave an incoherent and inaccurate response. Also, here's video of Paul Ryan destroying DWS' talking point about seniors (read: future seniors) having to pay $6,000 more per year for healthcare. A debt crisis is on the near horizon. Entitlement programs are going under. Twenty-three million Americans are unemployed, underemployed or have given up home. GDP growth is slowing. The president and his allies have no plans, so they're forced to invent smears and argue against positions that their opponents don't hold.

I'll leave you with this clip of my debate with Sally Kohn on Fox News. The topic: Whether comparisons between Paul Ryan and Ronald Reagan are apt. Sally, like many liberals, must pretend that she adores Reagan -- arguing that he was far too liberal to win the GOP nomination these days. (Remember, every Republican is either dumber or more evil than the last). This assertion is laughable, and her characterization of Reagan's record is flat wrong. Kohn also offers some, um, creative "interpretations" of what the Romney/Ryan plan would do:

The Romney/Ryan plan does not raise taxes on anyone, let alone 95 percent of the country.

UPDATE - Just a reminder: I do not pick on DWS because she's an easy target. I hold her to account because she is Barack Obama's hand-picked leader of his party. She's not a fringe player. She's the DNC Chairwoman, installed at the request of the president of the United States. This seems like a good commercial for Mitt Romney: "I picked Paul Ryan. He picked Debbie and Joe. I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."

[Warph]

                               


Romney denounces Obama's "campaign of division and anger and hate"
By: John Hayward
8/15/2012 08:09 AM


In a speech in Chillicothe, Ohio on Tuesday, Mitt Romney had strong words for the ugly campaign Barack Obama is running:

It wasn't supposed to be this way. In 2008, Candidate Obama said, "if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters." He said, "if you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." And that, he told us, is how, "You make a big election about small things."

That was Candidate Obama describing the strategy that is the now the heart of his campaign.

His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency. Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower.

This is what an angry and desperate Presidency looks like.

President Obama knows better, promised better and America deserves better.

Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces.

If an American president wins that way, we all lose.

But he won't win that way. America is one Nation under God. American history has been a story of the many becoming one – uniting to preserve liberty, uniting to build the greatest economy in the world, uniting to save the world from unspeakable darkness. Everywhere I go in America there are monuments that list those who have given their lives. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the United States of America. So, Mr. President, take your campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago and let us get about rebuilding and reuniting America.

Romney didn't think much of Obama's record in office, either:

*Unemployment has been above 8 percent for 42 straight months. We will put Americans back to work!

*Half of recent college graduates can't find work or a job that matches their skills. We'll get good jobs for our kids.

*Nearly one out of six Americans are in poverty today. This is a disgrace we will end.

*And President Obama has amassed five trillion dollars of debt – nearly as much debt held by the public as all other Presidents combined. We will end this moral failure.

After four years, it's clear that President Obama's policies aren't fixing these problems, they're making them worse. That is why Ohio will lead the way by electing a new President on November 6th.

He said he thought Obama's performance was so disappointing because "I just don't think President Obama understands what it is that drives our economy." Romney's own understanding of American economic excellence included a pointed jab at Obama's infamous "you didn't build that" dismissal of the entrepreneurial spirit:

America runs on freedom. Free men and women, pursuing their dreams, working hard to build a better future for their families. This is what propels our economy. When an American succeeds, when she wins a promotion, when he creates a business, it is that individual, that American that has earned it, that has built it. Government does not build our businesses, the American people do.

*The American people also build the government. We pay for it with our taxes. We choose who will lead us with our votes.

*Do you want a president who believes that your rights come from God, not from government?

*Do you want a president who honors your right to pursue happiness, not as government commands, but as you choose?

*Do you want a president who will work every day to bring us together, not tear us apart?

*Do you want a president who will celebrate success, not attack it?

*Do you want a president who will never, ever apologize for the greatest nation on earth?

*With your support, I will be that President.

Romney did a very good job of presenting the substance of his campaign platform:

My plan focuses on five things.

First, energy independence. We will achieve North America energy independence by 2020, by taking full advantage of our oil, our gas, our coal, our renewables and our nuclear power. Abundant, inexpensive, domestic energy will not only create energy jobs, it will bring back manufacturing jobs.

Second, we must give our workers and our children the skills they need to succeed. Our nation cannot continue to fail in public education. For too long, we have let the agenda of union bosses steer the agenda of our schools. It is time to put our kids and their parents and their teachers first, and the union bosses behind.

Third, trade must work for America. We are one of the world's most productive nations. Trade creates jobs and raises take-home pay for American workers. We must open more doors for trade in Latin America, where there is a growing middle class. But when any nation cheats, as China has cheated, we must make sure that there are clear and compelling consequences.

Fourth, we will do what politicians in both parties have been promising for years, but have failed to do. We will cut spending, shrink deficits, and put America on track to a balanced budget.

Fifth, we will champion small business. Unlike President Obama, I won't raise taxes on small business. I'll make sure regulators protect the public, but that they stop killing our jobs. I will remove the crippling uncertainty that is preventing businesses from hiring.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama was making jokes about Romney transporting a dog on the roof of his car 30 years ago, and Joe Biden was telling an audience in Virginia that (Joe thought he was in North Carolina) Republicans want to "put y'all back in chains."

[Warph]

                  


                 

August 17, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Give 'Em Hell, Mitt!
Romney needs to stay on the offensive in the Medicare debate.
By Rich Lowry

               

On Medicare, the Romney campaign is borrowing the strategic logic of a long-ago military legend.

Taking command of the French ninth army in 1914 as it retreated before the Germans, Marshal Ferdinand Foch uttered his immortal words: "Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

The best Mitt Romney ad of the campaign is the current spot on President Barack Obama's cuts to Medicare. It points out that the president took $700 billion from Medicare to fund "Obamacare," robbing one unsustainable entitlement to create a new one. The ad is truthful, unadorned, and — for any senior who feels protective of Medicare — damning.

In the Medicare debate, schoolyard rules apply: Punch the bully in the mouth twice as hard.

It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion with people who insist you are going to "kill people" (Paul Krugman's words). If Vice President Joe Biden hasn't yet said that the Romney-Ryan Medicare premium-support plan will lead to the reinstitution of chattel slavery, just wait until the next time he gets worked up before a largely African-American audience.

Never before, though, have Democrats passed the largest Medicare cuts in history immediately prior to launching their tried-and-true assault. This time, it is a case of the pot calling the kettle a danger to America's seniors.

               

Confronted with Obama's Medicare cuts, Democrats and their friends in the media resort to denial.

On Meet the Press the other day, I asked Rachel Maddow if she supported the $700 billion in cuts, and she simply wouldn't say. Here was the Oxford-educated pride of liberal punditry professing to have no opinion on a primary means of funding what she considers a glorious legislative achievement.

Others pooh-pooh the significance of the cuts. They supposedly hit only "nonessential services." This may be the first time in the debate over entitlements that Democrats have deemed anything related to Medicare "nonessential."

What Democrats mean is that $156 billion of the cuts fall on the Medicare Advantage program. They have always hated this feature because it gives seniors access to private-sector coverage options. But seniors like it.

                             

The Obama cuts also rely on grinding, year-after-year reductions in payments to doctors and other providers. This is a way to maintain that there are technically no changes in "benefits," though access to and quality of care inevitably will be affected.

No one concerned with the health of Medicare would go about it in this fashion. But "Obamacare" was helter-skelter legislating, a desperate attempt to make the numbers temporarily add up.

Medicare's actuaries consistently sound the alarm about the consequences. A May 2012 report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said, "The large reductions in Medicare payments rates to physicians would likely have serious implications for beneficiary access to care." It also noted the punishing effect on hospitals, skilled-nursing facilities, and home health agencies, which "would have to withdraw from providing services to Medicare beneficiaries, merge with other provider groups or shift substantial portions of Medicare costs to their non-Medicare, non-Medicaid payers."

                       

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314240/give-em-hell-mitt-rich-lowry

[Warph]

                           

With every word he utters, with every action he takes, we hear that Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma is playing to his base.  Whether he's extending unemployment benefits, increasing the number of people receiving food stamps; cutting the interest rate for student loans; giving a pass to illegal aliens; promoting public and private sector unions; funding Planned Parenthood; supporting same-sex marriages; and refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers, it's all done for the sole purpose of energizing the nitwits who elected him in 2008.

It's unintended irony when people refer to Obuma's base because among the word's multiple definitions are "morally reprehensible; lacking dignity; mean-spirited; selfish; and cowardly."  That pretty much sums up those who are willing to turn a blind eye to Obuma's war on capitalism and his promotion of class, race and gender warfare, so long as his groupies receive their puny little bribes.

Just a few of the inconvenient truths these weasels are willing to overlook are: one, that Obuma's agenda will inevitably slaughter the golden goose; two, that his profligacy is sending America spiraling into bankruptcy; and, three, that his gutting of the military ultimately diminishes our nation's influence in world affairs, where it has traditionally served as a bulwark against the evils of communism, Nazism and Islamic terrorism.  Such vital matters aren't even a blip on their collective radar.

Although I have often likened left-wingers as termites and rodents, Obuma's supporters more closely resemble parasites mindlessly devouring their host.

Because those who join Alcoholics Anonymous and successfully attain sobriety must first agree to turn their lives over to a Higher Power, I have long wondered if it would work as well with those poor souls who have gotten intoxicated on the fermented Kool-Aid of liberalism.  The problem, of course, is that they would first have to wise up and quit picturing Barack Insane-Hussein Obuma hovering over us mere mortals.

Speaking of hovering, because Obuma has long made a practice of surrounding himself with dunces like Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett and Katherine Sebilius, in order to appear intelligent, and dwarves like Timothy Geithner, Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman, in order to appear taller, he's going to have his work cut out for him when it's time to debate Romney.  For one thing, he's not as bright as his opponent and he's certainly not as good-looking, and, without his Teleprompter, he's about as spell-binding as Porky Pig.  As if all that isn't bad enough, he's shorter than Romney.  That's why I'm betting he will be wearing elevator shoes for the event and perhaps an earpiece into which David Axelrod can feed him his lines.

Although I am still confident that Mitt Romney will win the election, I find it annoying that even after three years of this administration's lies and incompetence, Obuma remains personally popular with so many people.  I mean, even if you support his policies, as apparently many people do, why is it that more people aren't turned off by his obvious arrogance, narcissism and hypocrisy?  I mean, if you had neighbors, in-laws or people in your workplace, who shared those qualities, I'm sure most normal people would go out of their way to avoid them.

In spite of all that, according to the polls, Obuma is running neck-to-neck with a genuinely decent guy like Romney.  I'm afraid that says less about Obuma than it does about the typical American voter.

On top of everything else, Obuma wants to condemn Romney for being wealthy, although he is not as wealthy as such Obuma supporters as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Barbra Streisand or George Soros.

Obuma condemns Romney for outsourcing American jobs, even though the liberal Washington Post points out that's an outright lie, while Obuma has personally overseen the out-sourcing of billions of American tax dollars to such places as China, Finland and Brazil, to name a few.

Whether it's because of his traumatic upbringing or his later political influences, which, by his own admission, included racists, radicals and communists, I sincerely believe that Obuma has several screws loose.

So when I say "Screw him!" it's hardly my intention to insult the alleged leader of the free world.  I'm only suggesting that the White House handyman should get busy tightening up those loose nuts before Obuma comes completely unglued

[Warph]

Ryan unspun
By: David Harsanyi
8/17/2012 04:39 PM

By naming Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan to the Republican presidential ticket, Mitt Romney offered Democrats an opportunity to reject demagoguery and engage in a serious intellectual debate about the future.

Or so says conventional media wisdom. To this point, however, no such luck. The path of least political resistance, it seems, is to scaremonger the electorate with half-truths and outright lies. Mitt Romney might be running on his own budget—though he has embraced many of the components of the Ryan plan—but that hasn't stopped Democrats:

1. No, the Ryan budget isn't extreme

Jim Messina, President Obama's campaign manager, who, among countless partisans has probably never actually read Ryan's budgets, calls his plans "radical."

A common distortion was forwarded by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who not only claims that Ryan's budget "would kill people, no question," but that Ryan's plan would "cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge." Life under Calvin Coolidge–high growth, low taxation and peace–is nothing to sneeze at, but Ryan's plan, alas, would only bring non-military discretionary spending back to 2008 levels. It would cut subsidies and federal bureaucracy by 10 percent and reform compensation plans of federal employees.

Now, if we're talking about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to see that Krugman has a point—though, an equally misleading one. Since mandatory spending has grown at almost six times the pace of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, one could easily argue that Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge. Or, in this president's case, it might be more apt to mention Herbert Hoover.

Many conservatives believe Ryan's budget is too tepid as it doesn't balance the budget for over a decade. The plan only reduces spending from the current 24 percent to 19.8 percent of GDP. As economists have pointed out, this would bring federal expenditures down to the average of post-WWII levels. In the Ryan budget, federal spending increases every year during the next 10, and revenue rises every year afterwards. The budget expands from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022—a trajectory which can be considered an extreme "cut" only in Washington.

2. No, his plan doesn't favor the rich

What would a day of campaigning be without some class envy? Messina also claims Romney had "chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment" to a "new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy..."

Flawed theory or not, there are no special tax cuts in the Ryan budget "for the wealthy." Any time Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform or growth policies, the rich (who pay most income taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan's plan, though, only extends tax revenues we've had for the past decade—the ones, in fact, that Barack Obama supported to extend in 2010.

What Ryan's plan does is reform the current six-strata tax-rate system into two, a 10 percent rate and a 25 percent rate. It fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax (which Democrats support) and cuts corporate taxes rates (which Obama has said he'd be willing to entertain) to reflect rates used by competitive nations. To keep revenues stable Ryan (and Romney) have proposed closing loopholes (disproportionately used by wealthy Americans).

3. No, Ryan's plan does not destroy Medicare

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, a representative of the hyperventilating wing of the Democratic Party, recently claimed that Romney and Ryan partnership was a "nightmare for seniors who've earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we've said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare." Messina says that the duo would end "Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system." And Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has been running around from one media outlet to the next casually claiming that Ryan's plan would destroy Medicare for today's seniors.

No, no and no. The Wyden-Ryan Medicare plan—co-authored by a liberal Democrat—wouldn't affect anyone over 55. Seniors who've earned their Medicare benefits would not see a change, and those under 55 would not have to ever see a change either—unless they voluntarily took part in a more competitive plan. Even then, Washington would pay premiums as you made choices, which, if you believe in the basics of free market economics, would bring down prices and improve service.

Moreover, the liberal Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes but take out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. So it seems that in reality, the party unwilling to reform a program before it reaches the point of unsustainability is the one acting as the agent of its destruction.

4. No, he's not at war with women

The phony "war on women" attack is a vital part of any left-wing campaign against social conservatives. Democratic congressman Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania says that Ryan "believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says that Ryan "supported the 'Let Women Die Bill,' which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it."

Naturally, Ryan has never voted for anything resembling those accusations. He did vote for the "Protect Life Act," which would have rewritten provisions in Obamacare to prohibit federal subsidies for abortion—something liberals claim is already codified in law–and insure that Catholic hospitals would not have to chip in for abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. No, he's not a congressional obstructionist

According to Gallup, Congress' approval rating hit an all-time low recently. The president, trying to exploit this sentiment, blames gridlock on GOP-led Congress—featuring Ryan. Is it fair? Hardly. The House has passed dozens of bills that focus on economic recovery. And a reminder: Obama's serious was rejected by everyone in both the House and Senate. While Ryan's budget passed the House with a 228-191 vote.

The president went a way overboard, in fact, in a stop in Iowa last week, saying: "So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It's time to put politics aside and pass it right away." The House of Representatives had already passed a stop-gap measure to help drought-ridden farmers. In fact, the House has passed a budget, while a Harry Reid-led Senate hasn't passed one in over three years.

These are but a few examples of the mendacity surrounding Ryan's record. The media has ratcheted up the harsh tone all around—either by misrepresenting Ryan's positions or just insulting him. Take one-time political journalist Charles Pierce, now with Esquire, who called the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, "The zombie eyed granny-starver, Paul Ryan, Pericles Of Janesville." (In the Urban dictionary—the definitive source on all nonsense—none of the three definitions for "zombie eyed" seem to work for Ryan.) Or read Erika Christaki, writing the "Ideas" section for Time magazine, who says that Ryan's budget is un-Christian. Jesus, she points out, would as "best as we can tell" support a 50 percent tax rate—maybe even higher.

We will leave guesswork on Jesus' preferred top marginal tax rates to the brighter minds and theologians at Time magazine, because, when it comes to Ryan, there an abundance of easily disproven falsehood to tackle right here on Earth.

[Warph]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314244/joining-battle-james-kemp

Paul Ryan: Joining the Battle

Ryan understands the spirit of enterprise that made America prosperous and free.

By James Kemp

I was nine years old when I attended my first political convention. It was 1980, we were in Detroit, and I will never forget walking into the main auditorium and seeing sign after sign with my last name on it: "Reagan/Kemp!"

Suddenly I understood. As we later joked, Dad hadn't been missing my soccer games just because he thought soccer was a socialist import. He really had been busy at work. Politics, and especially ideas, was Jack Kemp's passion. And his distinctive politics of optimism, inclusion, freedom, and growth were already making a mark on the Republican party.

Fast forward 16 years. I was standing at the podium with my dad at my second Republican convention, looking out at the cheering crowd in San Diego, and trying to take in Senator Bob Dole's unexpected decision to choose my dad as his vice-presidential running mate.

Last weekend, when I watched Paul and Janna Ryan with their three young children as Governor Romney announced his selection for VP, I was reminded of that heady moment in 1996 and the emotions my family now shares with theirs. But even more, I thought of 1980 in Detroit, and I knew exactly what Liza, Charlie, and Sam were thinking: Their dad has been doing some real work in Washington, D.C., every week he's been gone from Wisconsin.

Thirty-two years after the first "Kemp" signs appeared at a Republican convention, the torch has been passed to the next generation of champions of the American Idea. For those who were skeptical of Mitt Romney's leadership and vision for this great nation, his selection of Paul Ryan should remove any doubt.

The Kemp family has known Paul Ryan for nearly two decades. He worked for my dad, Bill Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Vin Weber from 1993 to 1995 at Empower America before going on to become a congressman at age 28. Seven terms in office later, Congressman Ryan has forged his own path serving his country.

Surveying the challenges of the day, Paul became chairman of the House Budget Committee, an often tedious and thankless job. In the face of national economic weakness and a climate of debt, doubt, and despair, he provided a blueprint for recovery and growth, drawing on America's strength, not its fears. Paul offered up his ideas not because they were perfect but because he wanted his challengers to make them better. That is how great ideas grow greater and how true leaders lead.

Obama isn't working. It's not him; it's his ideas. And unless he is willing to come forward with new and better ideas — and to debate Ryan on the merits of those ideas — he will lose in November.

The exchange of ideas is key to what my father stood for. Politics can and should be civil. But the debate must take place. You must stand in the arena and defend your ideas.

Paul Ryan has done that. Last October at the Kemp Leadership Award dinner, I introduced Paul as the middle linebacker of the House, and Washington Redskins all-pro middle linebacker London Fletcher gave the keynote speech. Middle linebacker is the most brutal position in football. Like London, Paul has bloodied his nose but hasn't missed a game. Neither London nor Paul is out there looking for personal glory. They are lunch-pail guys: They put on their hard hats, go to work, and succeed.

And Mitt Romney has done that too. He knows how to look at a problem and find the right resources to fix it. In Paul Ryan, he has found just the right running mate, a leader who shares his vision for America and who understands the spirit of free enterprise that has made our country great, prosperous, and free.

More than ever, our country needs principled leaders, men and women who can translate the American Idea of optimism and hope into visionary policies of freedom and growth. This is the historic calling of the 2012 campaign. Hopefully, years from now, the children who stood at the podium during Romney's announcement will look back at this election and say, Thank you.
— James Kemp, the son of former congressman Jack Kemp, is president of the Jack Kemp Foundation.