Tagged: Paul Ryan Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • backyardconservative 10:02 AM on 04/14/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Paul Ryan   

    What Kills A Skunk, Part Two 

    We heard the president’s speech. One of the most dismaying things about it, that makes most people recoil–aside from the pure demagoguery on the debt and spending tsunami we face–was that he invited Paul Ryan to come hear it. Paul Ryan, the GOP Budget Committee Chairman, and author of a brave and substantive plan to tackle our fiscal nightmare and wrestle it to the ground.

    Why would President Obama do this? Is he clueless of civil behavior?
    I think this comment has hit on it, in part:
    Why on earth would The One invite him to attend a speech that was designed to demagogue Ryan for electoral purposes?

    Because he’s a petty, thin-skinned girlie man who thinks he’s tough. He was trying to intimidate Ryan into backing off. Epic FAIL.

    Was that some sort of “if I’m going to kneecap this guy, I ought to at least look him in the eye” concession on Obama’s part?

    It’s what kills a skunk:

    Part Two.
    More to come.

    –crossposted at BackyardConservative

  • Jill 9:37 AM on 03/15/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Paul Ryan   

    What’s worse — the bill or the process? 

    Answer: They both stink to high heaven.

    The cram-down has begun in earnest. The shell-bill is in place, ready to be emptied and refilled with . . . something. One thing’s for certain, the final product will be bad, because every iteration thus far has exacerbated problems it’s supposed to fix. Robert Samuelson busts a couple of persistent healthcare reform myths:

    How often, for example, have you heard the emergency-room argument? The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue.  [. . .]

    You probably think that insuring the uninsured will dramatically improve the nation’s health. The uninsured don’t get care or don’t get it soon enough. With insurance, they won’t be shortchanged; they’ll be healthier. Simple.

    Think again.

    Read the whole thing for his evidence.

    Rep. Paul Ryan in today’s Washington Post:

    Rather than tackle the drivers of health inflation, the legislation chases the ever-increasing premiums with huge new subsidies. Already, Washington has no idea how to pay for the unfunded promises in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and creating this new entitlement would accelerate our path to fiscal ruin. When you strip away the double-counting, expose the hidden costs that must be funded and look at the price tag when the legislation is fully implemented, the claims of deficit reduction are as hollow as claims of cost containment.

    This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans — to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don’t play by Washington’s new rules. The CBO said last July that “requiring employers to offer health insurance, or pay a fee if they do not, is likely to reduce employment.” The mix of mandates and higher costs will drive Americans into government exchanges, with an ever-enlarging number reliant upon taxpayer subsidies for their care. The architecture is designed to give the government greater control over what kind of insurance is available, how much health care is enough and which treatments are worth paying for.

    Read the rest.

    Jennifer Rubin on that:

    In short, the cost-containment problem (otherwise we’ll bankrupt ourselves, the president once threatened) is made worse, dramatically so, by the bill. And when we add on “a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans,” you have a truly destructive, ill-conceived piece of legislation. If members think hard about that, rather than the arm-twisting and bravado from the White House, what the leadership is up to will become apparent. They are not, it seems, in the business of passing anything remotely resembling “reform.” They are rather attempting to avoid humiliation and prevent a tidal wave of rage from their liberal base.

    That’s small consolation to moderate Democrats, who, in their quieter moments of self-reflection, understand not only that their constituents intensely dislike the bill but also that such aversion is fully justified. It would be one thing to challenge public opinion for a noble and necessary bill; it’s quite another to walk the plank for what Ryan dubs “the Democrats’ health-care train wreck.” All the tricks — reconciliation, voting but not really voting on the Senate bill — are designed to encourage lawmakers to do something many know isn’t wise substantively or politically. If Republicans are smart, they’ll spend the week forcing Democrats to look at their handiwork and reminding them that voters will hold them fully accountable for their mischief.

    And this just in: they have no shame. Obama is totally fine with backroom deals now, because this power grab cannot happen any other way. AP:

    Clinching support for the bill might require Obama to back away from his insistence that senators purge the legislation of a number of lawmakers’ special deals.

    Taking a new position, Axelrod said the White House only objects to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the “Cornhusker Kickback.” That’s being cut, but provisions that could affect more than one state are OK, Axelrod said.

    That means deals sought by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine — even though Gibbs last week singled them out as items Obama wanted removed. There was resistance, however, from two committee chairman, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and the White House has apparently backed down.

    Axelrod said the principles the White House wants to apply include “Are these applicable to all states? Even if they do not qualify now, would they qualify under certain sets of circumstances?”

    Insert primal scream here.

    • Pat Austin 10:12 AM on 03/15/2010 Permalink | Reply

      How much do we actually trust that the garbage in the shell will get cleaned out for the garbage in the other bill? Will we have double the garbage? Will the public option stay in? You want to bet on that?

      • rubyslipperblog 12:28 PM on 03/15/2010 Permalink | Reply

        I would put nothing past them but there are a few reasons to think they won’t put the public option in. It will make it harder to get the votes It is also likely to start something they really can’t afford right now and that is a revolt from the providers. We saw that anaesthesiologist letter to Pelosi from January requesting there be no public option or increase in government insurance. The White House and Dems could spin a revolt from insurers probably to their advantage but they would have a PR nightmare on their hands if health care providers took to the airwaves opposing anything let alone the public option.

    • fuzislippers 10:16 AM on 03/15/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This is an absolute nightmare. They just want to pass something, anything no matter the cost in terms of money or life. I’ve never seen or even heard of anything like it . . . at least in this country. Unbelievable. And very very frightening.

    • Obi's Sister 5:54 PM on 03/15/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Even the most apolitical can see their arrogance and disdain for the American people.

  • Pat Austin 6:24 PM on 03/11/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Paul Ryan   

    It Just Won’t Die 

    I’ve never in my entire life seen such a stumbling, lurching mess as is this health care bill. It’s harder to kill than a cockroach in a nuclear blast and equally as nasty. It’s had at least five incarnations, and that’s probably being modest, both with and without legislative language. It’s been through kickbacks, bribes, amended, modified, changed, rewritten, compromised, protested, debated, through one presidential summit and hundreds of town halls throughout the nation. We’ve had medical professionals with prop lab coats, twice, and Senators in tears on the Floor. The potential for future constitutional challenges is likely.

    And it won’t die.

    The Democrats are teetering on having enough votes in the House. Can Nancy Pelosi call it for a vote and risk having just one hero stand up and shut it down? Just.one.vote. Hero!

    The bill seems dead one minute and is pumping the next. It was reconciliation. Then it wasn’t. then it was the Slaughter option. Then it wasn’t. Now we have the Parliamentarian saying Obama has to sign the bill before reconciliation can happen or any amending bills.

    As others have more artfully explained, the only bill then, that can be signed, is the Senate bill – that bill which is odious to the House. Will the House vote for that?

    And now we have Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking member of the House Budget Committee:

    Ryan says that, come Monday, Democrats “will bring a shell piece of reconciliation legislation” to the budget committee. “The reconciliation process has to begin there,” he says. “Here’s what they’ll do: They will take the House health-care bill and mark it up so that it can become a reconciliation vehicle. Republicans will make runs at this via motions to instruct, but since we’re outnumbered, their package will get through the committee. Then they’ll send that shell of a bill to the House Rules Committee. The rules committee will then gut the budget committee’s reconciliation bill and drop in all of the deals that Speaker Pelosi arranges with members who vote for the Senate health-care bill in the House.” Those deals, he adds, “will be hard to scrutinize, and we may never know their full extent, since many of them will be orchestrated outside of health-care legislation.”

    It just won’t die. Once that Senate bill is signed into law, you have a huge new federal job-killing, economy-draining entitlement bill.

    It’s hard to take solace in the fact that the Democrats will all be tossed out once that happens. That’s just not even good enough.

    (Cross Posted at And So it Goes in Shreveport)

    • MarkJ 7:39 PM on 03/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      As for the “Bill That Wouldn’t Die,” I say we take off and nuke Washington DC from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

      I’m not sure the slithering, shambling, slimy mess called ObamaCare will ever gets its claws into the American economy: all kinds of individuals and groups undoubtedly have already typed up their legal briefs to challenge portions, or all, of this legislation if it passes. My money says the first challenges will be filed before the ink in Lord Obama’s signature is dry. ObamaCare, under a best case scenario, will be tied up in court battles for years and big chunks of it will be ultimately ruled unconstitutional–assuming it’s not repealed first.

      And, shucks, I’m not even taking into account the massive citizen resistance that will surely ensue from passage of this BS. Forcing taxpayers to fund abortions against their will? Involuntary purchase of health insurance? Special deals for certain states? Oh yeah, that’ll really make for peace, harmony, and tranquil streets this summer. /snark

    • Obi's Sister 8:14 PM on 03/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      This calls for a youtube of “The Blob”

    • rubyslipperblog 8:33 PM on 03/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Here is a perfect example of their obsession:

      ‘Mrs. Reid has a broken nose, broken back and broken neck,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. ”Lana has a neck injury and facial lacerations. Both Mrs. Reid and Lana are conscious, can feel their extremities, and according to doctors their injuries are non-life threatening.”

      Reid, D-Nev., went to the hospital after being notified of the accident and returned to Capitol Hill for a meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on efforts to pass health care legislation. He went back to the hospital Thursday evening.

      First, prayers for Mrs. Reid and their daughter for a swift recovery. I can’t imagine getting news of a serious accident involving my spouse and child, let alone the injuries described here then trotting back to the Hill for a meeting on health care. I am beyond horrified by that. Who is worse Reid for leaving or Obama for expecting that he would return for a meeting on health care?

      • backyardconservative 9:06 PM on 03/11/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Yes. A broken neck. My God.

      • Quite Rightly 9:04 AM on 03/12/2010 Permalink | Reply

        Demonstrates exactly how much human compassion and empathy actually is going into ObamaCare. Reid rushes back from the hospital to cut deals with Emanuel and Pelosi that will ensure that other people will have inferior care in the future, with fewer doctors and reduced access to life-saving drugs. Maybe they are all narcissists.

  • Mary Sue 5:12 PM on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Paul Ryan   

    “A Ponzi Scheme That Would Make Bernie Madoff Proud” 

    One of the highlights today, and there were quite a few, was Paul Ryan’s rebuttal to Sheriff Joe Biden’s pointless discussion on the deficit. Ryan made clear any “savings” from the Democratic health care agenda were a result of “smoke and mirrors,” specifically included to game the CBO. Ed Morrissey has video of Paul Ryan’s highlight from the morning session, including the takeaway quote:

    The difference is this. We don’t think all the answers lie in Washington.

    By federalizing the regulation of insurance, and by mandating exactly how it’ll work, you make it more expensive and you reduce the competition among insurers for peoples business. We want to decentralize the system, give more power to small businesses, more power to individuals, and make insurance compete more. But if you federalize it, you standardize it and mandate it, you do not achieve that. And that’s the big difference.

    While I certainly had my doubts about this summit, and it may be clear that nothing substantive was accomplished, this worked very well for Republicans. As Ed Morrissey noted after listing those fabulous reviews of the morning session, “Maybe the GOP sandbagged Obama the first time around?” This was definitely not a replay of the House Republican retreat, the “A Team” showed up ready to play.

    THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

    Cross posted at Ruby Slippers

    • backyardconservative 5:27 PM on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Some more facts. I understand the president cut Camp off:


      RT @RepDaveCamp: This doc clearly shows how Dems’ bill slashes Medicare benefits by half a trillion dollars

    • fuzislippers 2:38 AM on 02/26/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Ryan was fantastic. Actually, all the Republicans did a fantastic job. So much better than babbling about some dead woman’s teeth and a thousand sob stories. As someone on Twitter noted, we LIVE these sob stories and can counter with plenty of our own . . . none of which are the government’s responsibility.

  • Mary Sue 3:46 AM on 02/21/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Paul Ryan, Road Map   

    “You know, casting the other side as somehow nefarious and evil and poorly intended is the oldest trick in the book.” 

    Paul Ryan’s answer to a question posed in a condensed interview in the New York Times was a thing of beauty.   Consider the actual question posed by the Times author Deborah Solomon:

    He seems genuinely pained by what he has called the “obstinacy” of Congressional Republicans and their just-say-no obstructionism.

    There’s more:

    Your “Road Map,” we should explain, is a somewhat alarming document that proposes, in 600-plus pages, erasing the federal deficit by radically restricting the government’s role in social programs like Social Security and Medicare. The president described it as “a serious proposal.”

    Right. And then the next day his budget director starts ripping me and then the day after that the entire Democratic National Committee political machine starts launching demagogic attacks on me and my plan. So when you hear the word “bipartisanship” come from the president and then you see his political machine get in full-force attack mode, it comes across as very insincere.

    Ironically, Ms. Solomon begins the interview by noting the President has declared Ryan a “pretty sincere guy.” Ryan’s answers throughout give no such impression of the President, however.    Then again, we know Ryan is quite sincere, why should he say something he has been given no cause to believe is true?

    • One Ticked Chick 9:15 AM on 02/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      Typical liberal mindset. The reporter is “alarmed” because Ryan’s proposal would restrict the government’s role in programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Considering Congress has used the Social Security fund as their personal piggy bank, why would that be a bad idea?

    • pjMom 9:40 AM on 02/21/2010 Permalink | Reply

      I have a friend who swears the NYT isn’t biased in any way.

      It’s hard to think she’s that stupid when you see in print, “Your ‘Road Map,’ we should explain, is a somewhat alarming document…” UGH.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc