Enter Paul Ryan

The Democrats started attacking Paul Ryan minutes after Mitt Romney selected him as the VP candidate. They are focusing on Ryan’s budget proposals which–if you listen to them–will starve everyone from children to seniors while the rich like Romney aren’t required to pay their “fair share.” Their narrative is told through various ads and cliches, but their argument is simple:

1. Those who achieve wealth through business pursuits are inherently crooked. (athletes, actors and liberal politicians are exceptions)

2. Because Mitt Romney achieved wealth through business pursuits, he is crooked. (those like Warren Buffett and Jeff Immelt who play along with the government are exempt)

3. Romney’s selection of Ryan reinforces the above because Ryan is willing to cut spending to deal with the coming fiscal catastrophe.

4. Romney is protecting the top 1% and fails to acknowledge that the current financial malaise could be readily solved if only the wealthy “contributed” a little more.

While this argument fails to recognize that the private sector funds the government in the first place, there is a deeper issue here. Runaway government spending is a serious problem and the piper will be paid one day if we do not reform Washington. Serious cuts must be part of that reform. Raising taxes on the “rich” ignores the fact that top wage earners already pay most of the taxes anyway and the gap is far to great to be closed without substantial spending reductions. There is no rational argument to avoid this reality. Obama’s retort only strikes a chord on the emotional level.

Enter Paul Ryan. He’s a pragmatic conservative. He’s bright, understands the issues, and has been willing to put serious ideas on the table. I don’t agree with everything he has proposed, in short because I don’t think he goes far enough. But those on the left oppose his budget proposal because it goes too far. Ryan deserves massive credit for addressing the problem head-on, and his addition to the ticket exposes a core problem with the Obama administration: They have no serious alternative. The numbers just don’t add up.

13 thoughts on “Enter Paul Ryan

  1. If the rich pay the highest taxes, then why did Romney pay only 14%? Why does Buffet’s secretary pay more taxes than him? At least he is honest to say that this is irrational. You guys may call it Capital Gains or whatever other form of tax shelter, but money is money.
    “money, money, money
    Always sunny
    In the rich man’s world….”(ABBA)

    1. Here’s a great source of information on who pays taxes, including Romney and Buffett.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577168683705018156.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
      The distinction between income taxes and capital gains taxes is crucial. Capital gains are taxed differently because they represent returns on income that has already been taxed. Research shows that higher rates on capital gains actually reduces government revenues. It is also clear that you can take all of the income from the top 1% in a given year and still run a deficit. Say what you want about tax rates, but raising taxes on the rich simply won’t solve the problem.

  2. Capital Gains taxes are not a “tax shelter”; they are an oppressive tax that represents double taxation. What is fair about taxing money that is earned from saving and investing that makes money available for transfer from lenders to borrowers to invest in business that stimulates the economy? The money that is earning interest has already been taxed once. Then the government taxes the earnings on the money when it is invested or saved.
    If Warren Buffet is so concerned about his secretary and feels that he is receiving ill-gotten gains, all he has to do at the next board meeting is vote himself a salary; then he can pay income taxes rather than capital gains taxes like his secretary. Or, he can do his secretary a favor and establish a fund where she receives her pay from the capital gains it earns and only pay 15%. The whole argument is insane. People like a good sound-bite and are ready, willing and able to “drink the cool-aid” without stopping to rationally consider the facts of the situation. I don’t understand the “money is money” comment. And, this is the wrong argument. The budget and deficit issues are not tax issues; they are spending issues. You want a strong economy, low gas prices, reasonable grocery prices, the needy taken care of and no debt? Stop spending money! Don’t look for ways to get more of it. If you think that the government would pay down the debt with increased revenues from more oppressive taxation you’re kidding yourself. The spending spree wouldn’t stop.

  3. Aliza, let’s introduce some facts just to be different. Buffett paid $6.9 million in taxes last year. I don’t think his secretary paid more than that since she made a paltry $200,000. Obama knows he can’t raise taxes on the rich since he has a Republican house and it is likely to remain that way in 2012. He didn’t even try it when he had the majority in both houses. But his blame the rich, divide the country strategy is all he has. He has no record, no plan, no clue.

  4. Liberals feel a moral obligation to social justice. Since they are bound by no such moral obligation to the truth, they can present the so-called facts in any light they choose, using neutral sounding language to drive the point home. The gospel according to them is anything they want the public to believe. How many times have we seen Obama do this? They stick it to Romney because he can’t fight back lest he sound defensive, which only serves to further their views. Not so with Ryan. He has a total command of the facts of what “social justice” programs cost. He is not afraid to talk about how to pay for these thereby meeting the government’s obligation for Medicare and Social Security. He comes from the generation whose future is being stolen from them. He doesn’t have that target rich business background for exploitation. He can explain complex problems in simple language. He will not back down.

  5. Romney and Buffet said that the majority of their money comes from investments, not from salary. I think that Capital gains are actually an additional income to the owner and should be taxed higher than 15%( perhaps at 20% rate). I should have said income is an income, instead of money is money. It doesn’t matter if the income comes from “sweat” or from “air business”/investments. After all it is money. I’m not against spending cuts. Reworking formulas and other procedures in Medicare and Medicaid can be made to save money. Defense spending can be cut too. Why America had to be in Iraq for so many years? I wish that someone at the government could have anticipated the Arab Spring and after (or better before) Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Syria, Saddam Hussein’s turn would have come and he would have toppled by his own people.

  6. Aliza-the more the government taxes capital gains, the less likely individuals will risk their capital, open new businesses, hire people, etc. Historically, higher cap gains taxes REDUCE government revenue. You may THINK that capital gains taxes should be 20%, but you are actually reducing what government takes in. Obama was asked about this when campaigning in 2008 and he said that he still favored a higher cap gains tax rate because of “fairness.” This is insane. Why raise taxes when we know that it would lower government revenues?

  7. I am not a highly educated individual and it is beyond me why people can’t understand that capital gains is paid on interest/gains on money that has already been earned and taxed. Why should anyone pay taxes on money twice. Am I wrong?

  8. It’s all about envy, Toni. Liberals are jealous of those who succeed in the marketplace so they will tax them as many times as they can, when the earn it, when they invest it, when they spend it, and even when they die. They are preoccupied with trimming their neighbor’s success. They call it fairness, but income earned at the public trough is just fine. And their income level is always okay, it’s only those who earn more who are considered rich.

  9. I just heard you on Andrew Wilkow’s show today. I have been listening off and on for about 6 weeks. I really enjoyed your analysis on China. I also agree with you on this post. Keep up the good work!

  10. Ryan brings many good, achievable ideas to the table. Unfortunately, those that disagree with Romney and him refuse to see the logic. Ryan’s ideas do not fit in the box of a giveaway society. The facts are already there; less taxation leads to increased revenues for the government and an increase in prosperity for individuals. Decreased taxes and the removal of oppressive and arbitrary regulation boosts the economy and improves the lives of the overwhelming majority of citizens. These are the facts; just like gravity, the diurnal rotation of the earth and water being wet. However, the facts are not convenient or useful for those that wish to “fundamentally transform America”. Ryan and Romney wish to return the US to an environment of success and prosperity. The opposition wishes us to move in the direction of government dependence, slavery to the government and equal misery. Much to my despair, the logic and reason of a socially responsible, liberty promoting society is of no use to those who wish to sacrifice liberty for food.

  11. It seems that one very simple and basic fact that the left doesn’t understand is that most of the 1% stay here because they are Patriotic Americans. They don’t understand that the “evil” 1% can pick up there a$$es and their assets and move to any tax haven they wish. And it will not effect their wealth, or in most cases, their income, or, in this day and age of technology effect their ability to run their businesses. Actually, their financial power in their new local situation, should they decide to relocate, will probably be greater both in the marketplace and in the power structure. I guess it’s just easier to demonize and attack then to analyze and understand why the mean and nasty 1% even stay here? Oh, and if and when they decide to leave, the US Treasury gets zero, zilch, nada. How’s that working out for the Country?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *