Wisconsin is abuzz with rumors that Congressman Paul Ryan has been mulling over Presidential bid among the nation's politicos.  In the past 5 years, the 41 year old "young gun" has forged a reputation of being the intellectual brain-trust of the Republican Party.  With an expertise in economics and a zest for intellectualism, Ryan finds no difficulties presenting a fiscal argument; and he is only politician to date with a comprehensive plan to overhaul the country's entitlement programs.  Below are five reasons why Paul Ryan should run for President.

First, Ryan has a plan.  Democrats have criticized the Republican Party for being "the party of no," a slap at the GOP for opposing President Obama's progressive agenda.  Yet when the criticism was levied, Democrats had genuine control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government.

Ryan's "Roadmap" is forcing Democrats to address the insolvency of our federal entitlement programs and exposing - to some extent - the problems we have with government spending.  Case and point, the county hasn't had federal budget for three consecutive years and the nation's credit rating was downgraded for the first time in American history.

Ryan's proposal to overhaul of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is politically risky.  However, his ideas are economically sensible earning a strong endorsement by the CBO, scoring Ryan's overhaul of Medicare and Social Security as achieving solvency for future generations.

Second, Ryan is young, intelligent, and articulate.  To go head to head with President Obama, you need a candidate who is quick on his feet, performs well on TV, can explain the nuances of a plan with eloquent ease, and can uncoil the mistakes made by the current administration with simplicity and credibility.

Third, Ryan is a quick study.  Ryan has a good grasp of the issues and excels in debates.  As a policy wonk, there is little concern he cannot swiftly master issues not in his repertoire.

Fourth, Ryan is fact-driven - a quality embraced by a public growing weary of increased partisanship.  No politician is without prejudice, but we learn to trust those whose objectives aren't one and the same in catapulting their careers.  Ryan is genuinely driven to eliminate a debt crisis that threatens to saddle future generations with economic burdens.

For this reason, Ryan is comfortable explaining our nation's economic trajectory using tools like charts and graphs to elucidate his analyses.  Ryan is a Republican and owes loyalty to his party, but he has no problems calling them out for their fiscal blunders.  We need a candidate who doesn't casually dismiss logic or data when they don't support party prejudice.  With the economic state our nation is in, we can't afford any less.

And fifth, Ryan should run for President because the options are lackluster.  Besides Governor Rick Perry, there is no Presidential candidate inspiring confidence that fiscal reform is imminent.  Perry touts the robustness of Texas' economy, which may or may not be the results of his conservative policies; and Ryan can point to reform-minded ideas that have gained the support of economic scholars and the chief actuary of Medicare.

Conclusion

There are many important factors that Congressman Ryan will have to weigh before making his decision final.  A chief concern is how Ryan's Roadmap could play out in the primaries.  Republican opponents could distort his overhaul of entitlement programs as radical and potentially hindering his ability to appeal to moderates.

Another concern is that it's too early in Ryan's career to run for President.  Yet, Obama's Presidential candidacy shows that young, charismatic politicians can gain the public's trust under the right circumstances.  Obama won the Presidency using abstract solutions and a sharp barbs against the Bush Administration.  Ryan, however, is armed with concrete fiscal ideas scored by budget offices and health care actuaries.  His focus on reformist policies could reassure the public that he - unlike the current President - is concerned more about the nation's fiscal health than what the polls say.  If any young gun can pull it off, it's Paul Ryan.

 

Paul Ryan Discovers that Pelosi Fudged the Numbers

 

New CBO Analysis: Health Legislation Increases Deficits

March 19th, 2010

CBOContrary to recent claims, the Democratic health care overhaul will increase Federal deficits by at least $59 billion, and more likely $260 billion, over the next 10 years.

In response to a question regarding passage of the doc fix, Speaker Pelosi said “it’s not in this bill but we’ll have it soon. We’ve made a commitment to do this.”

CBO also estimates the effect on the deficit if a number of other unrealistic policy changes, in addition to the 21 percent cut to physicians, made by the Majority are never implemented.  % Assumes the Cadillac tax is never implemented. Continuing to delay the start of their proposal to tax individuals’ higher-premium health insurance plans. Throughout the legislative process, the Cadillac tax has been delayed twice – first during floor debate and then as proposed by the President. Under the reconciliation bill, this new tax is not implemented until 2018.

  • Assumes the artificial slowing of the growth in subsidies does not occur. The bill

Currently removes the annual indexing of the subsidies. Throughout this process, the bill
has been modified to increase subsidies in the near term, but reduce their growth in the
out years.

  • Assumes unrealistic cuts made by a Medicare commission. The Independent Payment

Advisory Board is tasked with unrealistic Medicare cuts that history tells us will never be implemented (e.g. doc fix).

Removing these assumptions reveals a stark reality. If these assumed savings are never realized – as is the likely scenario – CBO projects that rather than reducing the deficit in the years beyond 2019, the deficit would increase over the decade following 2019 “in a broad range around one quarter percent of GDP.” Using the Majority’s own methodology, this amounts to a second decade
deficit of $600 billion.

Additionally, CBO makes clear that the Medicare savings cannot be counted twice – both to shore up solvency of the Medicare program, as is the Majority’s claim – and to pay for a brand new entitlement as the legislation assumes. CBO states in the letter:

“ In effect, the majority of the HI trust fund savings under H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.”

If the Medicare cuts are directed to the Medicare program, as the Majority claims, the bill would increase the deficit by an additional $260 billion over 10 years and would increase deficits in the long term. Ignoring this additional cost does not remove it from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding
spending doesn’t reduce spending.

More Articles...