Video: Time for another Paul Ryan presidential campaign ad
posted at 8:20 pm on March 19, 2012 by Allahpundit
Not as dramatic as his first presidential ad, but that one was designed to set the mood. This is where he starts putting policy meat on the bone. Next, I assume, will come the foreign policy ad and then the “values” ad, and then boom — he wins the Wisconsin primary as a write-in on April 3 and suddenly the convention is pandemonium.
Seriously, this is the teaser for tomorrow’s big House GOP budget rollout. The headline is already written: Ryan wants just two income tax rates instead of six, the top one of which would be 25 percent — 10 points lower than the current top rate. Lots of “party of the rich” demagoguery coming our way in the a.m. While we wait, though, read Ryan’s op-ed in tomorrow’s WSJ laying out the other nuts and bolts of the plan.
As shown in the nearby chart, our budget tackles this crisis head-on by cutting debt as a share of the economy by roughly 15% over the next decade, putting the nation’s finances on a path to balance, and paying off the debt. By contrast, the president’s budget pushes debt as a share of the economy even higher. In his budget’s own words, it allows the government’s fiscal position to “gradually deteriorate” after 2022…
Our budget’s Medicare reforms make no changes for those in or near retirement. For those who will retire a decade from now, our plan provides guaranteed coverage options financed by a premium-support payment. And this year, our budget adds even more choices for seniors, including a traditional fee-for-service Medicare option.
We also introduce a competitive-bidding process to determine the growth of government’s financial contribution to Medicare. Forcing health plans to compete against each other is the best way to achieve high-quality coverage at the lowest cost, and implementing these reforms in Medicare can have the effect of lowering health-care costs for everyone. This is the key to increasing access and affordability while preventing government debt from threatening the health security of seniors and the economic security of all Americans…
We reject calls to raise taxes, but revenue nevertheless remains steady under our budget because we close special-interest loopholes. More important, our reforms will grow the economy—and the faster the economy grows, the more revenue the government will have to meet its priorities and start paying down the debt.
He’s got bipartisan cover from Ron Wyden on his Medicare reform plan this year so the “Ryan wants to kill grandma” messaging will have to be slightly more nuanced than in the past.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
More Agenda 21. Grabbing up as much land as possible.
katy on May 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Washington, DC aside, why does the federal government own any land..?
affenhauer on May 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Ya know, I think the GOP has stumbled upon a brilliant way to force some budget cuts. First we had it at the FAA, now at Interior:
1) Cut everything by XX%
2) People start screeching
3) You point out that “well, here’s where you could have saved that money”
4) Pass legislation reallocating the would-have-been-wasted funds to actual good stuff
5) Obama signs it.
If Step 2 doesn’t happen, we’ve won. If step 4 doesn’t happen, point out that “the democrats wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”. If step 5 doesn’t happen, scream and shout that “Obama wouldn’t let us reopen the parks!”
Mohonri on May 1, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Le bravo, Erika!
Yup. Filthy sob’s.
petefrt on May 1, 2013 at 5:38 PM
So they can hire people to manage it.
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM
And the really sad thing (and if you’re a liberal you would be intellectually dishonest to admit it) the properties would have been LESS developed and LESS crowded and BETTER managed if the gubmint had just kept their grubby paws off….
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM
deny it…sorry
WryTrvllr on May 1, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Katy got it on comment number one.
tom daschle concerned on May 1, 2013 at 5:47 PM
I suggest either:
1. The US Government sells all its lands back to the states in which the land is located, or
2. The US Government turns over operations to private, competitively bid contractors. Present US park employees would have first dibs on jobs, now private, assuming they are qualified. A small staff of government employees would remain to handle oversight of private companies.
#2 would shift the burden of federal employees from the government to the private secor. This would increase tax revenue because now the government would not have to pay these employees and the private contractor would pay taxes on profits. I expect that the private sector would be more efficient, being profit oriented, than the employees that have now no or little accountability.
If #1 goes ahead, I suggest the sale be contingent on the states adopting #2 making park operations private.
I’d like to see this across the board with as many agencies as possible.
billrowe on May 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM
That would be giving up power. Not gonna happen. They can’t even get rid of empty buildings that we are paying for, or empty bank accounts with monthly fees. How could this clown troupe ever actually get rid of LAND?
iurockhead on May 1, 2013 at 5:54 PM
And you wonder why “tin hats” believe government is buying up ammunition in order to drive prices sky high.
GarandFan on May 1, 2013 at 5:55 PM
They own most of the West. Why don’t we give it back to the Native Americans? At least they are savvy businessmen and would let energy companies lease it back!
PattyJ on May 1, 2013 at 6:04 PM
Since I cancelled satellite I’m getting reaquinted with OTA TV. Been watching PBS distort history and embellish socialism via a retelling of Ken Burns’ old dust bowl documentary. They are pulling out all the stops to make it as current to events and policy initiatives as possible. Fascinating in a “we need to defund this crap” kind of way.
Having read “The Roosevelt Myth” and seeing how dems are operating right now it confirms what we know about them. Fcae it, they are communists that won’t let us define them as such. Progressive, European socialists, whatever. They want to control people by any means necessary.
DanMan on May 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM
LOVELY picture of the Tetons :)
Jackalope on May 1, 2013 at 6:25 PM
National Park lands sure do make GREAT COLLATERAL for our debt!
Wouldn’t the Chinese love to get hold of some of the natural resources under the ground?
PappyD61 on May 1, 2013 at 6:28 PM
Why can’t I post links on here????
katy on May 1, 2013 at 6:39 PM
the Federal government should sell at least 90% of the land it holds. States hold too much land as well.
forest on May 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM
If you are trying to post CNN or CNBC links, HA has judged those sources unreliable and the whole post will be blocked.
slickwillie2001 on May 1, 2013 at 7:49 PM
New Mexico …..dopes are going for a land grab in Taos Co. . Believe me
they can’t manage any of the land they now ” own ” . But call it a National
Monument and the morons cheer . The locals don’t care ( they foul their
turf with trash galore ) not realizing that there are no tax $s for the county
in this grab . These are the good folks that write about how they can hear
their lettuce scream when cut it in their gardens .
Susanna Martinez R Gov. has injected a good bit of sanity in an otherwise
nuts state .
If only they could get the idea that cocktail hour doesn’t start at 11am !
Lucano on May 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM
That’s an interesting photo shot on the home page.
Cleombrotus on May 1, 2013 at 9:25 PM
I live just over the hill to the left of that cover photo. Just love it in the summer. Especially if summer comes on a weekend!
IdahoAl on May 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Thanks. It was a cbnc link
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
cnbc duh
katy on May 1, 2013 at 11:09 PM
FIFY, Erika.
There are *some* legitimate reasons, including military bases and ranges. And, I don’t mind a few national parks. One third of the land area of the US, though? Wow.
BINGO!
GWB on May 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM
The whole idea of these land grabs really frosts me !
Great piece Erika , wish it got more attention .
Lucano on May 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM