This presents a problem for the incoherent liberals: They’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. He cannot be both a radical slasher and a big spender. Which is it? They can’t have it both ways.
Libertarian Gene Healy leads us out of the woods: Ryan does have a big spending history, and his roadmap to fiscal sanity is weak tea.
Ryan's spending history:
Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, voting for No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other debacles. At the dawn of the Tea Party, Ryan lent his support to the auto and bank bailouts. He voted for TARP and gave "one of the most hysterical speeches" demanding others do the same, as Michelle Malkin observed in 2009.
[...] in 2003, Ryan voted for Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, adding over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab. (Ryan Hype)
Ryan's plan:
In May, FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy usefully compared Ryan's budget to the much bolder plan introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. Ryan's budget "would achieve balance in 26 years;" Paul's, "in five." Ryan's plan is short on specific cuts, whereas "Mr. Paul eliminates four Cabinet agencies -- Commerce, HUD, Energy and Education." Tellingly, "Mr. Ryan increases defense spending. Mr. Paul does not spare the Pentagon from scrutiny."
I bring this up not to damn Ryan, but rather to lay out the facts and put them in context. Senator Rand Paul’s spending reduction plan is much better and puts us back on firm fiscal footing much faster, but it is not politically viable at this time. Unfortunately, Ryan’s plan is about as radical as a plan can be while still having a a ghost of a chance to ever see the political light of day.
More importantly, Ryan’s plan beats no plan, which is all Big Empty Obama’s got.
More importantly, Ryan’s plan beats no plan, which is all Big Empty Obama’s got.
