The Paul Ryan Countdown Clock Is Running
I posted this today at The Milwaukee Journal's Purple Wisconsin platform:
Which House members will vote to kill the Senate's compromise 'avoid-the-cliff' bill and permanently label themselves irretrievably hostile to bi-partisanship while wedded to the farthest, Tea Partied right-wing fringe and its deep-pocketed financiers?
Paul Ryan is absolutely finished as a credible national political figure/Capitol Hill budget-and-policy wonk if he casts an ideologically-spurred "No" vote - - which would actually be a "Yes" vote for middle-class tax increases, for another economy-crashing recession and for a dagger to the dairy industry, to boot.
You can mark down Florida's Tea Party Senator/2016 Ryan rival Marco Rubio as a suicidal "No" vote in the wee hours this morning - - something even Ron Johnson couldn't do.
Does Ryan cede the edge of a shrinking GOP to Rubio with a "Yes," or contest it with a "No" vote which a majority of Americans will detest?
Today Ryan comes face-to-face with the perils of ideology and rigidity.
25 comments:
If I had to guess how Paul Ryan will vote on this, he'd vote "NO" but only if it's guaranteed to pass.
It looks like Cantor has set it up to add some poison pill amendments, so the House can vote Yes but it will be dead when it goes back to the Senate.
Ryan will probably miss any vote, barging into some soup kitchen after the meal is served, grab some clean pots and pans, and start scrubbing away.
He can then proclaim he took the high road -- heck, he will be sure to bring along photographers to this sham photo-op to make it even more believable.
Paul Ryan "Policy Wonk"/"Numbers Guy"?!?!?!?!?!?!
He is a media creation and nothing but a fraud.
I don't know. Isn't he as worried about milk prices as Johnson was?
I hope he does the right thing by voting NO.
It's time to start shining a light on the massive national debt and how it affects everyone's wallet.
It's the perfect lazer light to show how irresponsible Washington has become at fiscal spending over the last 4 years.
It's time to start paying the credit card bill.
Anon
You must mean like your hero scott walker did -- put the debt on another credit card and then put some of that borrowed cash into a rainy day fund in order to get a little more propaganda value out of it.
If its time to start paying the bills, then why are you talking trash instead of demanding tax rates that actually, you know, pays the bill?
Od dhow all this Anonymous hand-wringing about deficits and fake concern about 'credit card' bills was non-existent from 2001-2009. Odd indeed.
The biggest contributor to the debt that is so disastrous? Bush tax cuts and irresponsible wars. third in place? Reduced revenue due to Bush Depression.
The record shows that Democrats invariably result in reduced deficit spending and movement of the budget toward surplus, while Republicans follow Dick Cheney's maxim that "Deficits don't matter"
The most responsible thing to do from the standpoint of the economy and deficit is to avoid electing Republicans at every level above dogcatcher.
zombie, this anon thinks repugs are all shameless pigs that squeal loudly to distract the sheeple from seeing how much money is being stolen from them.
paul ryan, during the fiscal periods you refer to, was mindlessly voting for each and every budget-buster.
anon at 4:43 wants to scream PAY YOUR BILLS but refuses to acknowledge that this can only happen if those that made out like bandits over the past decade need to actually, you know, pay their damn taxes.
Here is everything you need to know about "policy wonk" paul "ayn rand is my god" ryan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1XbITvVelQ
While I don't believe the bill is even close to perfect, it is a compromise, and in a compromise, you never get everything you want. You only try to get as much as possible. I'd certainly say the bill favors democrats overall, but I'm sure that there are many democrat party members who aren't thrilled with it either.
However, there are enough nuggets in the bill that should appease republicans such as estate tax, AMT, dividends, 450k tax threshold, etc...
It is interesting as I sit here and watch c-span to see politicians on each side support and speak against this bill.
I also like that both sides are still talking about tax code and tax reform going forward. I only hope they follow through with it.
Now we can also finally say that the wealthy ARE paying their "fair share" so in the future the focus can be turned squarely on our country's out of control spending.
The next battle, where republicans will put up a better defense is the looming debt ceiling debate where the focus again will be on spending. My guess is that they will really dig in their heels at that point.
zombie, this anon thinks repugs are all shameless pigs
I know, It's hard to keep all the Nonny Mouses straight.
Now we can also finally say that the wealthy ARE paying their "fair share" so in the future the focus can be turned squarely on our country's out of control spending.
Not until we go back to Kennedy-era tax brackets.
Compromise RD?
Tell that to your children because their standard of living will be less than yours.
All we did was kick the can and pass a worth-less buck.
Wait until "quantitative easing" shapes up in 2014.
@Zombie,
According to your party the wealthy are now paying their fair share. Those are not my words, but theirs.
As for the Kennedy era taxes, why stop at 70%. Why not just confiscate all wealth about 500k? This is really more along the lines of what you would like to see.
Besides, we don't have to worry about that now that GW's tax rates are permanent tax law. It was determined by both parties that this was the "fair share" compromise. Heck even Obama only wanted them to go to 39%.
@anon 10:36
Yes compromise.
While of course this isn't the dream world bill of conservatives, it does address several longstanding issues such as tax rates, dividend/investment income, AMT and estate taxes.
What we have now is some tax revenue certainty for which is really what everyone wants and needs to make financial decisions going forward.
While we certainly did not address spending, the "can" was only kicked 2 months down the road and will be addressed sooner rather than later in debt ceiling / sequestration debates.
As Boehner put it (paraphrase) If 100 people are drowning, I'm not going to let 99 die because I can't get the last one as well.
Taxes HAD increased on everyone as of 12:00 on 1/1/13 and absent of action, everyone in the country would be paying more income taxes in 2013. The measure they passed in the house and senate was in fact a tax cut. It was not a tax increase as the president wants everyone to believe.
Why not just confiscate all wealth about 500k? This is really more along the lines of what you would like to see.
A few days ago, you got butthurt about me putting words in your mouth, yet here you are doing exactly that; not just that, but using your special mind-reading powers to tell me what I think.
Not that I care much, mind you; just taking a minute to point out the glaring hypocrisy and projection.
I also noticed that you didn't deny the accusation.
Why should I? it's not as if you argue in good faith, and the statement was ludicrous enough that nobody takes an accusation like that seriously.
You can pretend that this means you have accurately imagined my position, if it makes you feel better.
But pretending a 4% change in tax rates for the top 1% of the country makes up for the massive tax giveaway they reaped over the preceding 12 years is somehow a "Fair Share" is disingenuous at best. Whether some folks in 'my party' use that terminology doesn't mean I agree with it.
So a 4% break is now a "massive reaping?" What is it called when you don't pay any taxes?
Wow, and who were you suggesting makes the ludicrous statements again?
reagan's disiple
you do know that ronnie raygun had Alzheimer's desease and was incompetent to serve even in his first term, right?
The only difference between the 8 years he spent in the white house and the years he spent in assisted living is that he wet his pants a few more times a day after he left the white house.
And even though he was mentally incapacitated, the original tea bagger if you will, bush still tried to knock him off.
Why are you a disciple of such evil?
Of course, I said no such thing. Somehow, you managed to skip over the "[receding 12 years" portion of the comment; but then, as I said, I don't expect you to argue in good faith.
But go on and continue putting words in my mouth and pretending you can read other people's minds. It's kind of cute, although it might get on other commenter's nerves.
Why are you a disciple of such evil?
I think it's the 'mental incapacity' part that he relates to.
Way to take the focus off the issue and onto a "screen name."
But, i'll bite...
If he was incompetent with Alzheimer's in his first term, imagine how much greater he could have been?
Zombie,
Here is your chance.
State for the record that you oppose confiscating a US individuals income over $500k and/or their wealth over $500k.
Obama is letting the reduced 2% payroll tax expire as well. So much for protecting the lower and middle class, eh?
He is going to sink this economy before he is done. Just watch... the guy honestly doesn't have a clue and I kind of feel sorry for him. He is the classic example of the "Peter Principle."
You feel sorry for President Obama because he doesn't have a clue??? Now that's a hoot-n-a-half!
@ Anony too;
I know, that is what makes it so sad.
Post a Comment