advertisement

It's Paul Ryan: Romney picks Wisconsin congressman as running mate

Saturday, August 11, 2012 | 1:33 p.m. CDT; updated 7:37 p.m. CDT, Saturday, August 11, 2012

NORFOLK, Va. — Mitt Romney introduced Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his Republican vice presidential running mate Saturday, turning to the architect of a deeply conservative and intensely controversial long-term budget plan that would remake Medicare and cut trillions in federal spending.

In the campaign to come, Republicans will present economic solutions "that are bold, specific and achievable," Romney said as he presented his political partner. "We offer our commitment to help create 12 million new jobs and to bring better take-home pay to middle class families."

A look at Paul Ryan

NAME — Paul Davis Ryan, 42; born Jan. 29, 1970; Janesville, Wis.

EXPERIENCE — U.S. Representative; 1999-present; marketing consultant, Ryan Inc. Central, 1997-1998; legislative director for U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., 1995-1997; adviser and speechwriter, Empower America, 1993-1995; aide to U.S. Sen. Bob Kasten, R-Wis., 1992.

EDUCATION — Bachelor's degree, Miami University of Ohio, 1992.

FAMILY — Wife, Janna; daughter Liza 10, sons Charles, 8, and Sam, 7.

QUOTE — "Here in Wisconsin, I picked who I think is going to be the next president of the United States — I picked Mitt Romney. The moment is here. The country can be saved. It is not too late to get America back on the right track. ... It is not too late to save the American idea." — Ryan, speaking during an April 2012 campaign stop with Romney after endorsing him in the Republican primary.



Related Articles

The two men basked in the cheers of supporters in their made-for-television debut on a ticket hoping to make President Barack Obama's first term his last. "I did not make a mistake with this guy," Romney exulted.

"I am deeply excited and honored to join you as your running mate," Ryan said in his first words at the podium. He said that together, Republicans would eliminate the country's "debt, doubt and despair."

"Regrettably, President Obama has become part of the problem, and Mitt Romney is the solution" to an economy that has yet to make a strong recovery from the worst recession in decades, he said.

Ryan joins the ticket in a race defined from the beginning by a weak economy and high unemployment, measured most recently at 8.3 percent in July. Even so, recent national polls as well as surveys in several battleground states indicate a narrow advantage for Obama.

The GOP ticket made its debut at a naval museum in Norfolk, Va., the initial stop of a bus tour through four battleground states in as many days. It seemed likely a stop in Ryan's home state would be added to previously scheduled appearances in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.

The USS Wisconsin, berthed at the museum, was the bunting-draped backdrop, a symbol of the nation's military strength as well as an obvious reference to Ryan's home state.

First Romney, then Ryan, a generation younger than his patron, jogged down the ship's gangplank to the cheers of hundreds and the stirring soundtrack from the movie "Air Force One."

As his family came on stage, Ryan knelt to embrace his daughter, Liza, 10, and sons Charles, 8, and Sam 7, before kissing his wife, Janna.

While word of Ryan's selection leaked late Friday night and was posted by the campaign to its phone app before the speeches, Obama's campaign withheld its reaction until the Republicans had spoken.

"The architect of the radical Republican House budget, Ryan, like Romney, proposed an additional $250,000 tax cut for millionaires and deep cuts in education, from Head Start to college aid," Jim Messina, the president's campaign manager, said in a written statement.

"His plan would also end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors," he said.

Ryan's selection — as well as Romney's own nomination — will be ratified by delegates to the Republican National Convention that begins Aug. 27 in Tampa, Fla.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be nominated for a second term at the Democratic convention the following week.

One campaign official said Romney settled on Ryan on Aug. 1, more than a week ago, and informed Beth Myers, the longtime aide who had shepherded the secretive process that led to the selection. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, not authorized to be named in providing details.

Romney and Ryan had an unannounced meeting last Sunday, and the congressman accepted the offer, campaign officials said.

In making his pick, Romney bypassed other potential running mates, including Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Officials said he had called all five to notify them of his decision.

There was one unscripted moment, when Romney mistakenly introduced Ryan as the next president. He returned to the podium to say, "Every now and then I'm known to make a mistake. I didn't make a mistake with this guy. But I can tell you this, he is going to be the next vice president of the United States."

At 42, Ryan is a more than two decades younger than the 65-year-old Romney.

His conservative credentials are highly regarded by fellow Republican House members, while numerous polls during the primaries of winter and spring found Romney's conservatism was suspect among the party's core supporters.

A seven-term congressman, Ryan is chairman of the House Budget Committee, and primary author of conservative tax and spending blueprints that the tea party-infused Republican majority approved over vigorous Democratic opposition in 2011 and again in 2012.

They envision transforming Medicare into a program in which future seniors would receive government checks that they could use to purchase health insurance. Under the current program, the government directly pays doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.

Ryan and other supporters say the change is needed to prevent the program from financial calamity. Critics argue it would impose ever-increasing costs on seniors.

Other elements of the budget plan would cut projected spending for Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, as well as food stamps, student loans and other social programs that Obama and Democrats have pledged to defend.

In all, it projects spending cuts of $5.3 trillion over a decade, and would cut future projected deficits substantially.

It also envisions a far-reaching overhaul of the tax code, of the sort Romney has promised.

Romney and Ryan appeared comfortable with each other when they campaigned together earlier in the year. The former governor eagerly shared the microphone with the younger man and they shared hamburgers at a fast food restaurant.

In making an endorsement before his state's primary last spring, Ryan said, "I picked who I think is going to be the next president of the United States — I picked Mitt Romney. ... The moment is here. The country can be saved. It is not too late to get America back on the right track. ... It is not too late to save the American idea."

Romney was the subject of an April Fools' prank in which Ryan played a role. Romney showed up at a supposed campaign event where he heard Ryan calling him "the next president of the United States" — only to find the room nearly empty.

In recent days, conservative pundits have been urging Romney to choose Ryan in large part because of his authorship of the House-backed budget plan.

Republican National Committee finance chairman Ron Weiser of Michigan said Friday night that Ryan's selection would help Romney win Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes in the fall. The state typically supports Democrats in presidential contests and Obama won it handily four years ago.

Ryan has worked in Washington for much of his adult life, a contrast to Romney, who frequently emphasizes his experience in business.

The congressman worked as an aide in Congress, and also was a speechwriter for the late Rep. Jack Kemp, who years earlier had been one of the driving forces behind across-the-board tax cuts that were at the heart of Ronald Reagan's winning presidential campaign in 1980.

Ryan is also well-known for his fiendish physical fitness workouts.

His congressional district in southeast Wisconsin has something of a bipartisan voting record. Obama took 54 percent of the vote there in 2008, while the congressman received 64 percent in winning re-election.

Outside Ryan's home in Janesville, Wis., on Friday night, there was nothing to suggest that the residence belonged to a vice presidential candidate. An Associated Press reporter who knocked just before midnight got no answer. There was a light on in a first-floor room of the two-story brick home atop a hill.

Earlier this week, a Ryan adviser said the congressman, his wife and their three children were preparing for a weeklong Colorado vacation.

Most of Romney's staff learned of the planned announcement during a 10 p.m. EDT conference call Friday about an hour before the campaign issued a statement. The identity of Romney's pick was not disclosed during the call. The campaign had promised that first news of the selection would be delivered via a phone app.

Earlier in the day, Romney's campaign briefed reporters on the bus tour without mention of the impending vice presidential announcement.

The bus tour will take Romney through Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio. All are battlegrounds where Obama won in 2008. The states hold a combined 75 electoral votes, of the 270 needed to win election.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Christopher Foote August 11, 2012 | 4:30 p.m.

Choosing Ryan suggests that team Romney must not like their internal numbers. Though the pick will certainly please conservatives, I don't see how it helps Romney's chances in the fall. Ryan's ideas of redistributing money to the business elite at the expense of everyone else doesn't poll to well, except for those who desire a regressive tax code. I suppose that when one's political philosophy holds that a 14% tax rate on $20 million (Romney's 2010 income and tax rate) is too high, it makes sense to pick an individual with a plan to lower that rate. I guess we'll find out this fall how many people agree with that dystopian vision. Here's one fellow who disagrees:
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 11, 2012 | 4:48 p.m.

The top 20 percent of the income EARnERS pay 94% of the incone tax burden.

So, those that want to paint a picture other than fact are either uninformed or incapable of understanding at an adult level. Speaking of acting like an adult, Ryan seems to believe we need to live within our means. What a novel concept these days. I guess it's so foreign a concept to liberals that he might as well be speaking a different language.

Owebama has busted our budget, i guess it's impossible to bust your budget if you are the only president in history to not have one, more than any other president in history and has nothing to show for it. This is not lost on those of us paying attention. This is Ryan's strength. This is what he brings to the table. Responsibility!!!

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 11, 2012 | 5:30 p.m.

@mm,
Mr. Ryan has consistently voted for legislation that increased the deficit, especially during the Bush years in which the Republicans controlled all three branches of government. Here he is ridiculing Republicans that actually care about the deficit:“We noticed that the green-eyeshade, austerity wing of the party was afraid of class warfare. They fear increases in the debt, and they were overlooking issues of growth, opportunity, and free markets.”
That doesn't sound like someone who wants to "live within their means".
In 2005, he sponsored the House bill to privatize SS. The bill contained no benefit cuts and it was funded entirely by borrowing (naturally!). It was estimated to cost $2 trillion in its first decade. The Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.” That's right, the Bush administration called it fiscally irresponsible, just let that sink in. But now you want to present him as fiscally responsible. Why is that? His budget calls for a massive redistribution of wealth to the elites AND increases the deficit over current law (note that calculus includes the spending cuts he won't name specifically, due to political cowardice).

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 11, 2012 | 7:29 p.m.

"Mr. Ryan has consistently voted for legislation that increased the deficit". I believe he also voted for the legislation that eliminated deficits for the first time since 1968.
"In 2005, he sponsored the House bill to privatize SS. The bill contained no benefit cuts and it was funded entirely by borrowing (naturally!)."
"Funnily enough, Ryan also proposed a resolution in 1999 that passed the House (with only Ron Paul voting against) expressing the sense of the body that Social Security should be maintained without any changes to benefits for current retirees or increases taxes." Here is a great link showing Ryan's history in the House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...

"His budget calls for a massive redistribution of wealth to the elites AND increases the deficit over current law". This is the way Chris Always describes "across the board tax cuts". Give it up!

Ronald -er- Paul Ryan knows the ropes. He can easily and simply explain the lies of the BO administration and never stammer, nor lose his endearing smile.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 11, 2012 | 10:10 p.m.

I wonder if Chris knows that the "facts" he is spewing about tax breaks to the rich etc are actually pure fiction made up by a liberal think tank. Yes, it is a shame that the Obama campaign repeats these known lies with no shame, but that is nothing new. Closing loopholes and lowering the overall rates increases revenue and increases the share of said revenue that is paid for by the rich.

Special thanks to Dave Camp from the WSJ for contributing to this repot below...

The Tax Policy Center also ignores the history of tax cutting. Every major marginal rate income tax cut of the last 50 years—1964, 1981, 1986 and 2003—was followed by an unexpectedly large increase in tax revenues, a surge in taxes paid by the rich, and a more progressive tax code—i.e., the share of taxes paid by the richest 1% rose.

For example, from 1980 to 2007, three tax rate cuts brought the highest marginal tax rate to 35% from 70%. Congressional Budget Office data show that when the tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 18% of all federal income taxes. With the rate down to 35% in 2008, the share of taxes paid by the rich doubled to 40%.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 12, 2012 | 4:10 p.m.

Foote, are you willing to give up your mortgage deduction to help reduce the debt and deficit?

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 12, 2012 | 5:43 p.m.

@Jimmy Bearfield,
Absolutely. All deductions should be ended for everybody...including corporations. Everybody should be taxed at the same rate for the same dollar earned, no special interest favors (The rate should be progressive with respect to income). That would go a long way in removing not only shady dealings by lobbyists in procuring deals but also in addressing our long term fiscal problems. Most of the deductions accrue to the top 10% and corporations, and do not spur economic growth.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 12, 2012 | 7:09 p.m.

How do most of the deductions accrue to the top 10%? The vast majority of people who owe no federal income tax make less than $50K thanks to deductions for mortgages, kids, tuition and a gazillion other things. Many of those deduction phase out with higher incomes.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin August 12, 2012 | 7:51 p.m.

The deductions John and Jane Q Public take shouldn't be the top priority. Rather, the specialized deductions and income shields ultra-high earners take ought to be on the table, along with broad based government spending cuts.

High earners have a palette of tax breaks not readily available to most people, many based on asset sales. Most people don't have assets large enough to sell that can offset income, and so can't take these breaks.

So-called "loss harvesting" is one example. A high-earner with a valuable asset that has lost value over the course of a certain tax year can sell the asset, take the loss, and use it to offset gains from other assets or income.

They can even "carry forward" the loss into future years, using the asset sale to shield income beyond just the year it was sold.

Do this aggressively, and it's entirely possible to earn $100,000,000 in a year and pay $1,000 in income taxes (or less).

The upshot is that government continues to spend regardless, and lower income taxpayers make up the difference.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams August 12, 2012 | 8:01 p.m.

A high-earner with a valuable asset that has lost value over the course of a certain tax year can sell the asset, take the loss, and use it to offset gains from other assets or income.

They can even "carry forward" the loss into future years, using the asset sale to shield income beyond just the year it was sold.
_______________

This is certainly NOT limited to high-earners as the above statement implies. Joe Doaks in the stock market or any other legitimate investment can carry forward losses. And small businesses having a tough year do it, too, which can be a damned good thing for the business AND the jobs it provides since it allows the business to survive until the good times when a better cash flow allows taxes to be paid.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 12, 2012 | 8:13 p.m.

Mike, low and middle income earners have a enormous palette of tax breaks, many of which are unavailable to those making $200K or more. That's why the vast majority of people who owe no federal income tax make less than $50K.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin August 12, 2012 | 10:24 p.m.

Joe Doaks in the stock market or in small business rarely has losses sizable enough to shelter an entire year's income -- especially purely paper losses designed almost solely to shelter income.

And don't get too hung up on the one example. There are many far more exotic tax breaks, loopholes, and the like that tend toward such specificity they are open to only a select few at the highest end of the income spectrum.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 13, 2012 | 7:27 a.m.

"The deductions John and Jane Q Public take shouldn't be the top priority."

*Deductions*, should not be priority. Democrats got deduction loophole closing legislation by Reagan with the lie that they would reduce spending relative to new revenue brought in. Reagan stated "we got the new revenue, but, I've yet to see a Dimes worth of spending cuts".

Historically an irresponsible Congress will spend, give away and steal every dime available to it and borrow 15T$ that is not. This is why we are told, (by D's, with a straight face) The Federal Budget cannot be balanced without spending cuts AND tax increases.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 13, 2012 | 8:38 a.m.

Mike, I'm not talking about writing off business losses. I'm referring to mortgage, child care and all of the other deductions that eliminate their federal income tax and, in many cases, get them a check paid for by the remaining 53% who do pay federal income taxes.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 13, 2012 | 9:30 a.m.

Any right wingers remember Paul Ryan (Deficit Hawk!) insisting that George Bush pay for his tax cuts, wars and medicare expansion with either new revenue streams or spending cuts? (crickets)
Surely a Tea party favorite and media anointed Deficit Hawk wouldn't have supported the TARP/wall street bailout? (crickets)
Ryan's budget, that passed the House in 2011, would add $6 trillion to the deficit in the next decade!
Can someone name one initiative by Mr. Ryan that cuts the deficit in the short or medium term? (crickets)
That would seem like a fairly low bar to cross in order to be deemed a deficit hawk.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 13, 2012 | 9:40 a.m.

@JB,
The bottom 56% of households = 5% of the mortgage interest deduction.
75% of the deduction goes to the top 20%.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/ass...
Numbers from the Tax Policy Center.
Once again tax deductions mainly benefit the wealthy.

(Report Comment)
Gary Straub August 13, 2012 | 10:26 a.m.

Can any of those that propose most tax deductions are for the bottom tier, say that they have read the tax code. One of the favorite ways of paying back big donors is by writing new inventive ways for the wealthy to cut their tax burden. This is not a partisan comment as it is done by both sides of the aisle. Right now the tax code is 73,000 plus pages. Does anyone believe that these are written for us? http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.co...

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 13, 2012 | 10:36 a.m.

"Once again tax deductions mainly benefit the wealthy."

Perhaps in sheer dollars. But the majority of people who owe no federal income tax make $50K or less: http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/pf/taxes... and http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin August 13, 2012 | 11:19 a.m.

JB: The Earned Income Tax Credit -- not deductions -- is the primary driver of 0% income tax liability among people who earn less than $50,000/annually.

Exemptions -- which are also not deductions -- pick up the rest.

Only one deduction -- the standard deduction -- enters the tax liability calculation for most lower income earners.

They have to make a choice -- either itemize, to get the deductions you're talking about (like child care, mortgage interest, etc.) or take the standard deduction.

In most lower-income cases, the standard deduction is larger and preferred. I doubt eliminating it is presently on the table, and may only end up under consideration after many much larger and more exotic deductions are eliminated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itemized_de...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_de...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ex...

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 13, 2012 | 11:23 a.m.

Mike, I'm putting credits such as the EITC under the same heading as deductions because they all enable the people who use them to avoid paying some or all of their federal income taxes.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 13, 2012 | 11:34 a.m.

Per WSJ

The Ryan budget would reduce the deficit to just 3% of gross domestic product by fiscal year 2014, three years faster than the White House estimated its plan would reach that level. For comparison, the deficit is expected to be $1.2 trillion this year, 7.8% of GDP.

So, his plan cuts the deficit by more than half in two years. If I am reading your post correctly, you are complaining that Ryan doesn't go far enough in cutting the deficit. Welcome to our side!

"Can someone name one initiative by Mr. Ryan that cuts the deficit in the short or medium term?"

1. Cuts to military spending.
2. Cuts to entitlement programs.
3. Closing loopholes and lowering tax rates, which has raised overall revenue and increased the amount of the overall tax burden paid for by the "rich" the previous five times this has been done.

Oops. Sorry. You only asked for one...

What I find most interesting about Ryan is that he doesn't even "count" the increase in revenues that are likely, based on the previous five times, as he has something called responsibility. If this works the same way it did the previous five times, the short term deficit will be less than the 3% above.

"Once again tax deductions mainly benefit the wealthy."

Whether you call it a deduction or welfare, the EITC and the CTC are the main reason the bottom 50% of earners pay only 2% of the tax.

Think about that for a minute. Half the people pay only 2% and you are complaining. Get a grip!

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 13, 2012 | 11:47 a.m.

"Any right wingers remember Paul Ryan (Deficit Hawk!) insisting that George Bush pay for his tax cuts, wars and medicare expansion with either new revenue streams or spending cuts?" Probably not. The tax cuts didn't "cost". Wars cause deficits and I have never heard a liberal mention that Senator E. M. Kennedy wrote the legislation, ran across the nation speaking and writing for it, shepherded it thru Congress then sent, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drugs to Bush for his signature.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 13, 2012 | 11:52 a.m.

"Right now the tax code is 73,000 plus pages. Does anyone believe that these are written for us?"

And who is trying to change the tax code? It ain't Democrats!

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger August 13, 2012 | 12:36 p.m.

Off-topic, I admit, but what successful legislation has Mr. Ryan put forth during his House tenure? Anybody know?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 13, 2012 | 12:50 p.m.

Hank, can we ask the same question of Senator Obama's tenure? And with most of the crap that comes out of Washington, I'm not sure that's a great question to ask. I'm of the opinion that most legislation should fail.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin August 13, 2012 | 12:51 p.m.

JB: Whatever point you were trying to make is now lost on me. Tax credits and deductions are different creatures, serve different purposes, and originate from different considerations, political, economic, and otherwise. Conjoining them to make a point will only cloud the point. The tax code is cloudy enough as it is.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 13, 2012 | 1:18 p.m.

"Tax credits and deductions are different creatures, serve different purposes, and originate from different considerations, political, economic, and otherwise."

But they all have the same effect: They free some people from paying taxes and force other people to shoulder an additional burden. All credits and deductions should be eliminated. There's no reason why someone should get a break for owning a house, having a kid, donating to charity or having a retirement account.

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote August 13, 2012 | 1:44 p.m.

@mm,
The Wall Street Journal editorial page has a vastly different perspective on reality than the CBO (Ryan plan will increase the deficit by 3% of GDP over the next 10 years versus the baseline scenario. Note that this includes the entitlement cuts you mention but also includes far larger tax cuts):
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofi...
and Nobel prize winning economist, Paul Krugman (per capita revenue does not increase in the aggregate following tax cuts when viewed over the course of an entire business cycle):
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06...
and Paul Ryan himself who disagrees with Obama's budget plan to cut 487 billion over the next 5 years as well as opposes the $600 billion in mandatory military spending cuts:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5...
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree as our "facts" are considerably at odds with one another.
I still have not seen any evidence that Ryan has ever supported legislation that cuts the deficit in the short or medium term. Perhaps you could specify the legislation by name.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger August 13, 2012 | 2:21 p.m.

Well, John, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. But do you happen to know the answer to the question?

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 13, 2012 | 2:34 p.m.

"Right now the tax code is 73,000 plus pages. Does anyone believe that these are written for us?"

Ronald Reagan introduced the expanded basic deduction to simplify the return and save money and he did it for us"

Jim Carter, put the "filing status" on the 1040. It increases taxes. He did That for "us".

(Report Comment)
Rich C. August 13, 2012 | 3:02 p.m.

I like how confused the Republican party is. They elected Romney as the candidate only to realize he is perhaps just as liberal at the current President.

The solution? Romney brings in a member of the tea party.

Just as he "flip-flops" on pretty much everything he said as Governor, he now gets on his knees for the crazy tea party crowd.

(Report Comment)
frank christian August 13, 2012 | 3:51 p.m.

C. Foote - CBO used to be your pure source for budgetary predictions. What happened?

Paul Krugman(whose name must not be mentioned without reference to his Nobel prize, also "won" by A. Gore and B. Obama)is a proven expert on nothing except Keynesian spending. Has he ever recommended anything else? When Bush and R' Congress cut cap gains taxes the take in revenue had been around 50B$ annually. CBO estimated that the reaction might increase that amount to around 60B$. The actual added revenue brought the total to 100B$! Don't know if the "business cycle" had been completed by then or not. Do you know of anyone else who likes "to look at it is to compare business cycle peaks."

Does this seem "expert" to anyone? "Oh, and since 1979-82 was really one double-dip recession, I just use 1979 and ignore the 80-81 “recovery”." Receipts for Federal government 1979 - 463.3B$, '80 - 517.1B$, '81 - 599.3B$, '82 - 617.8. Woah! I'm just a layman, but doesn't that seem quite a lot of revenue to leave out of an economic expert's, expert economic calculations, even if he did win a Nobel prize?

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 13, 2012 | 3:54 p.m.

Do you guys even know you live in a state where there is a balanced budget amendment to our State Constitution?

Should I label Gov Nixon a Tea Partier since he was forced to make cuts he didn't like to submit a balanced budget?

What is so crazy about cutting spending to match revenues?

Before you ask, when the top 20% of earners, according to CBO, pay 68% of the tax, yes, it is crazy to continue to ask for more. Did you all have parents that bought you new sports cars with their retirement accounts? I was told, "Sorry Charlie, can't afford it. Get a job."

Maybe we should just try to examine this "fairly". Liberals like to be fair, correct?

Maybe we should just let the people that pay taxes decide how much revenue we should send to the government and what it should be spent on? We had this thing called The American Revolution back in the day because people who had no say so were being forced by others to pay more and more tax. When half aren't paying anything, but demand more revenue from those that are, we have a similar situation, no?

Instead of no representation I currently only have 1/2 representation.

At what point does this get unfair?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith August 13, 2012 | 4:52 p.m.

@Mike Mentor:

It wouldn't make any difference whether Romney chose Ryan or Jesus Christ as his running mate, they'd find something wanting with the choice. Well, of course: Jesus says the Kingdom of God is not of or on Earth, while they're trying to establish it inside the D.C. Beltway. Obviously, Jesus is wrong. :)

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements