America’s national debt is over $16 trillion. Yet Washington can’t figure out how to cut $85 billion—or just 2% of the federal budget—without resorting to arbitrary, across-the-board cuts. Clearly, the budget process is broken. In four of the past five years, the president has missed his budget deadline. Senate Democrats haven’t passed a budget in over 1,400 days. By refusing to tackle the drivers of the nation’s debt—or simply to write a budget—Washington lurches from crisis to crisis.
House Republicans have a plan to change course. On Tuesday, we’re introducing a budget that balances in 10 years—without raising taxes. How do we do it? We stop spending money the government doesn’t have. Historically, Americans have paid a little less than one-fifth of their income in taxes to the federal government each year. But the government has spent more.
So our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue—or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we’ll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade.
Our opponents will shout austerity, but let’s put this in perspective. On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy.
Yet the most important question isn’t how we balance the budget. It’s why. A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes, our budget will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. Most important, our budget will reignite the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it in this country.
The truth is, the nation’s debt is a sign of overreach. Government is trying to do too much, and when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal, because it returns government to its proper limits and focus. By curbing government’s overreach, our budget will give families the space they need to thrive.
Since Obama was elected, he’s added over $5.5 trillion to the national debt. This is not sustainable. We cannot continue to pass on enormous levels of debt to our children so that 30-year-old students can have free condoms bought for them. It is immoral to spend trillions of dollars and then pass the bill to the next generation. Democrats like to talk about helping the children, but really they just want to force them to pay for their wasteful spending. It’s got to stop.
We all know that Paul Ryan is conservative on fiscal issues. He’s the man with a plan to stop overspending and solve the debt problem. But where does he stand on other issues?
Here’s an article from the liberal Washington Post about Ryan’s foreign policy views.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave a speech Thursday to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington. If one is looking for clues as to Ryan’s interests beyond chairing the House Budget Committee, a speech, as he put it, to “a room full of national security experts about American foreign policy” would merit attention.
…Ryan delivered an above-the-fray talk on the subject of American uniqueness (a less loaded term) and the myth that American decline in inevitable. He posited, “Our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power.”
Ryan contends that the debt crisis is not a bookkeeping problem or even simply a domestic problem; it is about maintaining our status as a superpower and about American values.
[…]He plainly is not with the cut-and-run set on Afghanistan. “Although the war has been long and the human costs high, failure would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al-Qaeda, which is reeling from the death of its leader. Now is the time to lock in the success that is within reach.” Nor can he be accused of wanting to “go it alone.” “The Obama administration has taken our allies for granted and accepted too willingly the decline of their capacity for international action. Our alliances were vital to our victory in the Cold War, and they need to be revitalized to see us through the 21st century.”
As for China, he bats down the idea that we should go along to get along… He’s clear that China has “very different values and interests from our own.”
And finally on defense spending, he rejects the sort of penny-pinching isolationism of Jon Huntsman or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).
Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee who has a strongly pro-life record, talked about the place social issues have in the election in an interview with CNBC last week.
“We will agree to disagree on those issues,” Ryan said last Monday on CNBC. “But let’s rally around the tallest pole in our tent
Ryan also released a statement today that LifeNews.com received saying pro-life issues are not on a list of menu items that have to be given up during the election season.
“Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard
“All planks – economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America’s founding truths and the dignity of every human person – are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism,” Ryan added. “The American family must remain at the core of our free society, and I will remain ever-vigilant in its defense.”
Conor Sweeney, a top Ryan spokesman, told LifeNews.com today that Ryan doesn’t agree with the “truce” on social issues Barbour and Daniels have advocated.
“Paul Ryan rejects the false choice that our natural rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are a menu of options,” he said, adding that Ryan has been “calling upon his colleagues to defend the sanctity of life.”
He also pointed to comments Ryan made in a Weekly Standard interview rejecting the “truce” language and putting him outside the Daniels-Barbour circle.
“I don’t see it quite the same way [as Daniels],” Ryan said in June, “we don’t need to ask anybody to unilaterally disarm.”
“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan continued. “You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”
Here’s his voting record on pro-life issues:
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment
YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion
YES on banning partial-birth abortions
YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad
YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes
YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info
YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life
YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
And he is also a strong defender of traditional marriage:
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance
YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes
Tough on crime:
Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes
YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime
NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
NO on expanding services for offendors’ re-entry into society
Favors school choice:
Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes
NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences
NO on $40B for green public schools
And an increased role for families and churches:
YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations
YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks
NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention
So definitely not just a fiscal conservative. He’s conservative across the board. And STRONGLY so.
Female readers of the Wintery Knight blog may now swoon.
Ryan argued the current administration had provided insufficient security to Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed, along with three other Americans, in a terrorist attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11
However, Biden sought to blame Republicans, saying the budget that Ryan authored as chairman of the House Budget Committee cut the Obama administration’s funding request for diplomatic security by $300 million.
Despite multiple reports that indicate there were requests for additional security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya, Biden claimed the Obama administration wasn’t “told they wanted more security.” The statement appears to be at odds with the official record.
Many times throughout the debate, Biden could be seen smiling sarcastically and shaking his head as Ryan spoke. Both men also interrupted each other a number of times, though Biden was a more frequent offender.
“I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don’t interrupt each other,” Ryan said. But he didn’t exactly stick to his word.
Actually, Ryan didn’t initiate any interruptions of Biden the entire night. It was Biden who kept breaking into Ryan’s speeches, with the full support of the moderator, and Ryan had to interrupt Biden then to get back the use of the time which he had been allocated to respond. Joe Biden could not control himself. He looked like some sort of Gollum flipping back and forth between laughing psychopath and somber sycophant. And always the leftist ABC News moderator was there to give him extra rebuttals, while denying Ryan any similar rebuttals. And if things started to go Ryan’s way, she immediately shut him up and moved on to another question.
The first question that I heard was the moderator passing judgement on Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney as to their timing of their response to the murder of our Ambassador. Then she allowed Uncle Joe to cut off Representative Ryan, and asked him to elaborate further and in detail about all the reasons why Paul Ryan was a liar. Why do Republicans put up with this sort of third-world dictatorship facade of a debate? She asks Paul Ryan why he was wrong and then asks Biden to tell her why his policies were so good- and this passes as unbiased and fair?
Next question- “Romney has book on No Apologies- tell me why this book is wrong and sucks and you are wrong for being part of this book”, then she interrupts Ryan to be critical of his answer. Look, I know that Obama appointed her baby’s daddy to a major office and Obama was at her wedding, but I can’t believe that she just interrupted Ryan about 30 seconds into his answer, especially after she let Uncle Joe ramble on and on for a full answer. He should have just stood up and walked out on her- I’ve been watching it for 7 minutes now and it’s clearly a joke of a ‘debate’.
This set-up- sit down in silence and no responding to each other and a moderator who wants to prove that she is something important- is boring.
So Biden’s strategy must be to question and ridicule everything that Romney and Ryan say- “this is incredible,” “that was malarkey,” “facts matter,”, etc.
Biden- “Iran has no weapon to put an atomic bomb in”- but yet Iran has Shahab missiles and Sajjil missiles- the Sajjil-2 is a medium-range missile of about 2,200 km or 1,375 miles when carrying a 750-kg warhead, capable of hitting our assets in the Middle East or any of our allies in the regime (although admittedly it’s rather inaccurate). So he’s wrong, flat wrong, and totally wrong.
This moderator continues to judge Ryan, have a conversation with Biden, throw tough questions at Ryan, softball questions to Biden, cut off Ryan, and let Joe ramble. This debate is a joke- the format, moderator, and set-up are all BAD. Ask a question and get the heck out of the way.
At 9:52, Paul Ryan is asked a question, and is interrupted and attacked by both the moderator and Joe Biden, he turns right, he turns left, he is being interrupted, and he keeps trying to push through, even over the moderator, who at 9:55 began to summarize Ryan’s plans in a typical-liberal manner, and now that she is done hearing his views and hearing him defend himself, she says “I want to move on now and ask another biased and slanted question of you.” Get out of the debate, moderator, and let Biden and Ryan talk.
Here’s the moderate Chris Wallace of Fox News to make it clear:
I don’t think that the debate is worth watching. The moderator ruined the debate because she has connections to Barack Obama, as I pointed out before, and it showed. I didn’t expect her to basically be a mouthpiece for the Obama campaign, but that’s what she did. This was a 2 on 1 debate from the first instant. It’s not worth watching. I don’t think that independents were impressed with 90 minutes of arrogant bullying by Biden and Raddatz.
You can read some tweets here which agree with this analysis. But it’s not just ordinary people who thought that Biden lost. Left-wing media people like Piers Morgan and Kirsten Powers tweeted their disapproval, too.