Paul Ryan - Republican Superstar

The name "Paul Ryan" is spreading quickly through political circles as the newest superstar of the Republican party. And for a good reason, Paul Ryan is young, charismatic, conservative, and his cognitive grasp of health care reform and economic policy issues literally overwhelms his democrat opponents. 

The Heritage Foundation recently named Congressman Paul Ryan as the future leader of the conservative movement.  The Weekly Standard has called Paul Ryan "The Thinker" who is a major influence in health care policy reform.  The Wall Street Journal called Paul Ryan the "Young Figure" that can lead the Republican Party out of the wilderness.  Human Events called Paul Ryan "The Rising Star" of conservative politics.  And Isthmus called Paul Ryan "The Poster Boy" of the Republican party.  I'm sure you get the picture. Major news networks, newspapers, and news-related websites are starting to catch on - Paul Ryan is likely to be the future star of modern conservatism.

Paul Ryan on Health Care

There seems to be no particular policy issue where Paul Ryan doesn't show expertise. Ryan has demonstrated a solid grasp of health care reform, economics, energy, education, social security, and even homeland security. However, one of the more substantial issues that Ryan has taken under his wing is health care reform.

Recently, Congress has been deliberating on the most significant health care bill in recent history - H.R. 3200 (The Public Option).  Ryan has laid out a number of positions why he will oppose the 1,017 page H.R. 3200 if and when it moves through the U.S. Senate. 

First, Medicare, the cornerstone of government health care programs, is growing to unsustainable levels and is virtually broke.  And Medicaid has its problems as well.  According to the Government Accountability Office, Medicaid had 32.7 billion dollars  worth of improper payments in 2007 alone.  If left unreformed, our current government health care programs will hurt our economy with crushing financial burdens.  If government cannot make Medicare solvent or stop the hemorrhaging in Medicaid, then how can they run the Public Option with solvency?

Second, it is impossible to create a public program where the government serves as both the referee and the player in the same game.  It's a stacked deck.  The "Public Option" would pay doctors and medical facilities at below market pricing in order to control costs.  We already see this problem with Medicare.    When doctors and facilities are shortchanged, service prices will go up to compensate for the losses.  Insurance companies will receive larger bills, which will be passed on employers in the form of higher premiums.  Eventually, employers will decide that it's better to dump their employees insurance coverage and pay a 8% penalty than it is to pay for skyrocketing coverage.  As a result, nearly 120 million would lose their private health care insurance.

And this is just one side of the coin.  H.R. 3200 forces all private insurance companies to participate in a "health Insurance Exchange", which will put further constraints on private insurers by setting benefit requirements, which could be damaging to their bottom line.  A Commissioner is given the authority, by H.R. 3200, to determine what these benefit requirements are.  This gives Washington bureaucrats unprecedented decision-making power over our health.   

And third, H.R. 32oo will not be deficit neutral, nor will it stop skyrocketing health care costs.  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has reported that a public option will cost taxpayers an additional one trillion dollars over the next 10 years - a hike that the CBO calls "unsustainable".  Bureaucrats typically underestimate the cost of government-run programs.  When Medicare began in 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated it would cost about $12 billion by 1990 (including inflation).  In 1990, the actual cost was $107 billion (9 times the cost).  And by 2006, Medicare had reached over $400 billion to operate, not including Medicaid's $309 billion.  Before we tinker with a government run health care, we need to figure out how to contain the costs of government-run health care programs we currently use.

Paul Ryan Introduces the Patient's Choice Act

If not the Public Option, then what?  Paul Ryan sponsored a bill called "The Patient's Choice Act.  It was formulated as an answer to Obama's Public Option and is a real opportunity for health care reform that ultimately strengthens the relationship between patient and physician. Paul Ryan describes the Patient's Choice Act as a system of universal health care access without the problem of government control. 

Currently, we do not have universal access to affordable health care coverage due to unfair competition with larger employers. Today's health care system subsidizes business corporations rather than individual patients. As Paul Ryan noted, this was done in an era where most individuals were employed by large corporations. However, today's America is not the same America of decades past.

The Patient's Choice Acts deters the current health care system from discriminating against the self-employed, the unemployed, and those who don't receive health care coverage at their jobs.  Under the Patient's Choice Act, employees would be able to apply refundable tax benefits to their personal choice of health insurance regardless if the choose to change their place of employment. This gives patients ownership of their coverage and control of their health care decisions.

Paul Ryan and the State of our Economy

Another policy issue near and dear to Paul Ryan is our economic security. While critiquing the democrat-led stimulus package, Ryan advised Congress to provide a fast acting tax policy that would boost business incentives to promote job creation. Currently, the United States government levies a corporate tax on businesses that is the second highest in the industrialized world. Ryan states that this tax policy inhibits business growth during a economic recession. Instead of fueling the expansion of business during a stagnant economy, the stimulus bill dedicates a small fraction (2.7%) of its funds to helping businesses retain and create jobs. Also, the stimulus bill, according to Ryan, levies a new 1.4 trillion dollar tax (over 10 years) against the so called "wealthiest Americans". Keep in mind, however, these are the same Americans that generate 60-70% of the jobs in the U.S. economic market.

Paul Ryan, the architect of the "Roadmap for America's Future", lays out a plan of fiscal responsibility for future generations. Part of the plan includes eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. By eliminating the capital gains tax, according to Ryan, it would promote capital investment and encourage individuals to contribute their wages to the economic market rather than keeping them under the proverbial mattress. Another problem, noted by Ryan, is the corporate income tax rate in the U.S. When American businesses compete in the global market, they find themselves at an unfair advantage with foreign competitors. American car manufacturers, for instance, are taxed twice when they export goods overseas. Foreign car manufacturers, on the other hand, do not operate by the same stiff tax penalties, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

Paul Ryan the Policy Man

Paul Ryan is not a Republican superstar because he's young and charismatic; he is a superstar because he's a policy expert that generates real solutions for America's most pressing problems. Although Ryan has successfully operated under the media radar most of his Congressional career, his analytical mind and a solid mental grasp of Congressional policy is starting to turn heads. Paul Ryan continues to impress and dumbfound even his most staunch liberal opponents in the media, and it's only a matter of time before Ryan becomes the single most important leader of the Republican party.

• Add New
• Search

Comments (4)

• |24.183.38.xxx |2009-07-04 03:46:02 scot @ OWN  - Wow.
  What about the 8 straight budgets totaling $20 trillion in spending that Ryan voted for -- and his utter fealty to every failed policy of the Bush administration?
  
  Or were you not granted "permission" to publish anything but this sycophantic, gag-inducing missive?
  
  "Paul Ryan is not a Republican superstar because he's young and charismatic; he is a superstar because he's a policy expert that generates real solutions for America's most pressing problems."
  
  Read that sentence aloud. Are you for real? Wait, is this a parody?
  
  What problem did Ryan solve when he and Bush and their industry pals got every single thing they wanted for six years? What was it?
  
  Was it creating the largest unfunded entitlement in American history -- Medicare Part D -- $8 trillion?
  
  Was it taking budgeting for two wars off the books -- budget malpractice the equivalent of showing up drunk to perform brain surgery?
  
  Was it being a full-throated advocate and obedient vote for the most massive shift of wealth from the middle class into the hands of the wealthiest in world history through the Bush failed tax cuts?
  
  Please answer those questions when you're finished performing stenography for the Young Gun.
  
  
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |98.144.2.xxx |2009-07-04 07:24:35 Aaron M. Rodriguez
  Scott Ross I presume?
  
  Spoken like a true member of One Wisconsin Now.
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |66.188.109.xxx |2009-07-05 10:59:36 Jeff Simpson  - So
  I dont care if it is Scot ross or Krusty the Clown those questions have serious relevance and you cant answer them. This article is to unbelievable to make the Onion. How about answering how he could vote against the cash for klunkers bill? Heaven forbid we do something to stimulate car sales in the US. Maybe if he had some car manufacturers in his district....
  
  Paul ryan is the absolute worst representative of any level in Wisconsin and he is even a worse person.
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |SAdministrator |2009-07-05 13:44:06 Aaron Rodriguez
  Jeff,
  
  Please don't confuse the concept of "not" answering inane questions for not being able to give an answer.
  
  The Cash for Clunkers bill essentially rewards those who purchased fuel "inefficient" vehicles (by folly or by deliberate volition) by subsidizing their purchasing power while those with moderately fuel efficient vehicles don't get such benefits because they were wise from the beginning.
  
  The concept of Cash for Clunkers is one more example of a foolish entitlement program that forces others to pay for the folly of their neighbor all the while spending money we don't have. And for what? So consumers can trade in a car that gets 17 mpg for a new vehicle that gets 23 mpg?
  
  Why don't we address the actual root of the problem and rework the union contracts so American cars are more competitive with their foreign counterparts rather than tossing money at a problem and expecting it to work? How is this any different than just financing the car companies with more of our money?
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |66.188.109.xxx |2009-07-06 16:53:07 jeff simpson  - come on now
  Asking how he can be considered a conservative and yet he was rubberstamp during the whole bush administration, which is easily the worst in the history of our country is not an inane question. Also asking how he can be a fiscal conservative when they put the whole of the iraq war which is slated for a minimum of 3 trillion dollars off the books is also a legit question.
  
  The cash for clunkers bill is not perfect I agree. It is a sin that it wasn't strictly for the purchase of cars Made in the US. It should of also been for $10,000 not $4500. Yet paul ryan didnt vote against it for that reason. Nor did he offer up an alternative, except lets cut SS and unemployment.
  
  the root of the problem is not the auto workers making a fair living, it is mismanagement and incredibly poor trade policies(all of which ryan voted for). Its hard for our auto companies to compete when their competition is getting subsidized to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars by their own govts!
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |SAdministrator |2009-07-07 15:40:27 Aaron M Rodriguez  - Off-topic
  Jeff,
  
  They are certainly legitimate questions that deserve answers, but they do not pertain to my article. I don't mind debating the merits of Ryan's voting record on a piecemeal basis, but the focus of my article is on "policy-making", not "policy-voting."
  
  What I believe distinguishes congressman Ryan from other congressmen is his ability to craft fiscally responsible legislation from an economist's point of reference.
  
  Concerning the Cash for Clunkers bill, the problem was systemic and needed no modification. What it needed was a trash bin. You don't reward poor purchasing behavior with government subsidies, nor do you chiefly depend upon government intervention to solve the financial crisis of the auto industry. For better or for worse, we participate in a global economy. Instead of propping up financially dead institutions with government dollars, let them restructure and run lean to compete with their foreign competitors. Ryan did the right thing voting against the measure.
  • 1
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

• |72.129.129.xxx |2010-06-29 19:32:35 Wes  - Cash for Faberge eggs
  The other issues aside, a couple things... "Bush's failed tax cuts"? What failed about them? EVERYONE who paid income taxes got a tax cut. Oh, but "rich" people got a bigger cut. Yeah, they also pay more, too. If there's a failure of the Bush tax cuts, it's that everyone should have gotten more of them.
  
  With how much liberals love "stimulus" bills and government jobs and all that, you'd think they'd love wars since they employ so many people and funnel so much "stimulus" money to weapon makers and soldiers. Heck, I'm surprised the military hasn't formed a union yet!
  
  As for Cash for Clunkers. What a sad, sad giveaway of my tax money. How much did each "$4,500" actually wind up costing the taxpayer? Something like $20k? It doesn't matter, since it shouldn't have cost even $4,500. Where's the incentive to do things the right way when those who do it wrong get rewarded?
  
  And then, on top of giving taxpayer money away, they destroyed the used cars! So much for caring about wasting resources. And, of course, no one considers how the plan negatively affected the used-car market. How about at least donating those cars somewhere? Nope. What a waste.
  
  It should have only been for American-made cars? What does that mean? The Mitsubishi Eclipse was built in Illinois, while the Chevy Camaro was built in Canada. ???
  
  To paraphrase my good friend... What's next? Turn in your old Faberge egg and get a million-dollar government voucher to buy a new Faberge egg? Oh, now you say I'm being ridiculous. Ridiculous? The government took $4,500 of my money and gave it to someone else to buy a new car, and I'm being ridiculous!?
  • 0
  • 0

  Reply | Quote

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Website:

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

!joomlacomment 4.0 Copyright (C) 2009 Compojoom.com . All rights reserved."