The Right Answers, Part Three

Congressman Ryan is up next and some of what’s to come is not difficult to imagine.

“Paul Ryan will end Medicare as we know it.” The right answer?

“Someone or something is going to end Medicare as we know it. We can also throw Medicade and Social Security in the crisis category as well. The question is not are these programs going to change, they are. The question is whether we agree on a common sense plan that recognizes the facts and the realities. We have an aging population, we live 10 years longer that we did just 50 years ago, we work longer and for many of us retirement is simply unaffordable. We can create new financial realities for these programs or simply wait for the crash and try to pick up the pieces. We can see a point in the future where the only thing government can afford are entitlements. Forget the roads and bridges, forget the military, forget money for education. If our opponents truly want those things as an integral part of the American experience they should be motivated to address the problems all of us know are there. Some of us are trying to address it some are not.”

The 47% Question is politically inevitable. The right answer?

“So far the President’s support has been very solid around that 47% number that everyone is so hysterical about. Other numbers regarding dependency of various sorts are similar. Poll after poll says it, including our own. Do we think 47% of Americans are slackers, of course not, that’s silly and the folks who perpetuate the talking point know it’s silly? Instead of talking about those folks, I’d rather speak to them.

Three things; first, I’d love to see the 47% prove the Governor wrong and offer him an honest opportunity to earn their vote. Our policies will generate economic opportunity and growth. The President’s policies have brutalized the 47%: unemployment, slow growth, Medicare cuts, eliminating energy production, and gas prices! The President’s policies have taken the hole that you’re in and made it deeper, made getting through the pile of bills harder. If these economic policies go on for another four years and the economy reels toward debt laden collapse, who gets hurt first? Who gets hurt worst? Those of you who have already suffered get hurt first and worst. I hope you will ask yourselves that simple question guided by nothing more than your own personal experience. Who’s hit first and worst if things don’t improve? The Governor and I can turn the tide on that suffering; if you’ll give us the chance.”

“Congressman Ryan has abandoned his core beliefs to join the Republican ticket.” The right answer?

“The right answer Mr. Vice President is no more complicated than a review of the 2008 Democratic primary debates. The President and Vice President did not agree on everything, nor did the President and Secretary of State. The right answer is; “so what?” The right answer is; “Ladies and Gentlemen what we have here is exactly what frustrates you, a politician accusing another politician of being a politician. This is not where the issues are, this is not where the solutions are and I suggest that we don’t waste any more time on it. This time, in this moment our challenges have to dominate our politics.”

  • Bill Hedges


    “Washington Post Misleads Readers About Paul Ryan, Tax Rates and Deficits”

    “Under more realistic dynamic scoring taking these effects into account, the rate cuts would not lose as much revenue as the CBO expects, and so the growth in revenues would be even more than it estimates as reported above. Public policy needs to be made based on the most accurate estimate of the effects of the proposed changes. But the failure to take into account these dynamic effects has led to gross errors in estimated effects from rate cuts in the past.”

    “In 1997, when Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%, CBO and the Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following 7 years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period. The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000, despite an almost 30% cut in the rate.”

    “Similarly, when Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20% to 15%, CBO and the JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections”

    “President Kennedy understood it. He proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by nearly 30%, explaining”

    “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.”

    “Kennedy’s proposed tax rate cuts were adopted in 1964, cutting the top tax rate from 91% to 70%, as well as reducing the lower rates. The next year, economic growth soared by 50%, and income tax revenues increased by 41%! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years.”

    “Similarly, while President Reagan cut tax rates by 25% across the board, and reduced the top income tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%, federal tax revenues doubled during the 1980s.”

    “In 1993, President Clinton tried the Washington establishment approach again with a Democrat Congress voting through a tax increase in supposed return for spending cuts as part of another budget deal. By 1995, the new Republican Congress, elected to replace the tax increasing Democrat Congress, was greeted with a Clinton budget still projecting continued $200 billion deficits indefinitely into the future, despite the tax increases.”

    “The new Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax rate by 40%, and reduced other tax burdens on capital investment, leading to a resurgent economy. Then they sharply restrained federal spending. Indeed, in 6 years from 1994 to 2000, they cut total federal spending relative to GDP by one-seventh, more even than Reagan did, though he was constrained by the need to raise defense spending, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, in Margaret Thatcher’s famous phrase”

    “As a result, $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. Those surpluses actually continued for 4 years, the first time that has happened since the 1920s, resulting in total surpluses of $559 billion over that period, the biggest reduction in federal debt held by the public in U.S. history.”

    “Ryan’s budget follows this one tried and true way to balance the budget. His budget would cut tax rates to produce a booming economy, leading to robust revenue growth, while restraining federal spending to let revenues grow past the level of spending over time. That is why by in just the fifth year under Ryan’s budget, 2017, even with CBO’s static scoring, the federal deficit is reduced by 86%, from $1,327 billion, or $1.327 trillion, today, to $182 billion. With dynamic scoring, as discussed above, the budget would probably be balanced by then, in the real world.”

    “The bottom line is this. Ryan’s budget, even with all of his proposed rate cuts, restores federal revenues to their long term, historical, postwar average over the last 70 years at 18.3% of GDP. But the problem is that under the budget policies supported by President Obama and the Democrats, federal spending soars to 30% of GDP by 2027, 40% by 2040, 50% by 2060, and 80% by 2080. With state and local taxes over 10% of GDP, that’s actually communism. Ryan’s budget, by sharp contrast, quickly returns federal spending to its long term, historical, postwar average of about 20% of GDP, by 2015.”

  • Bill Hedges

    Author wrote “We have an aging population, we live 10 years longer that we did just 50 years ago, we work longer and for many of us retirement is simply unaffordable”

    True. S/s was NEVER expected to be 100% of our retirement. Problem with s/s our money is in government HANDS TO SPEND. OUR “DONATION”, employer match, and 40+ years of interest would have s/s in black not at verge of destruction in “x” years:

    1. Government EXPANDS the benefits WITHOUT paying for.

    2. Government stops those payments to s/s from being paid.

    3. Worse of all spends the money themselves:

    “While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it’s curious to see Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.”

    “Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained.”

    See article for “national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets.”

    “As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. ” Something MANY LIBERALS will claim and told me at another site.

    “Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). ”

    “Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table” check article.

    “Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount–and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy”

    “”Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller,” said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. ”

    LOT MORE information supporting in article.

    To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:

    Go to the U.S. Treasury website:

    Scroll to the “Bureaus” section and click on “Bureau of the Public Debt” which takes you to

    Scroll down to the section “The U.S. Public Debt” and click on “See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny.”

    This takes you to the link I originally provided:

  • Bill Hedges

    End of last comment forgot some “”…

  • Bill Hedges

    Some thought Ryan would be a player, NOT A MAID, in Oval office. Maybe he will. Maybe he won’t. As Congressman, Johnston got legislation passed. Not used well as VP.

    When has VP been a independent player in WH and NOT a puppet on the President’s string ??? Like Dan Quayle visiting 47 countries ???