Contributors

Saturday, August 11, 2012

The Veep

Today, Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan to be his vice president. Here are my initial thoughts.

By choosing Ryan, Romney has shown that he is essentially going to be a piss boy for the hard right. As Grover Norquist noted, all they really need is a guy to sign his name. I can't think of a more perfect way to illustrate a Romney presidency.

The "Ryan Budget" will now get an immense amount of scrutiny and I think that's a great thing. As is usually the case with the right, they thump their chest and issue loud declarations about how things like this will save us all before any serious analysis is done. Their emotions and beliefs kick in and they stop thinking. Well, now we get to critically examine the plan which means you can be certain his ideas for Medicare are going to be ripped to shreds.

How is Paul Ryan going to run as a Washington outsider? He's a 7 term congressmen. It will be interesting to see how that plays with the Tea Party crowd as he has never worked in the private sector.

And I'm still wondering why conservatives love Ryan so much...at least the Christian ones. As a card carrying member of the Rand Cult, that isn't really congruent. I want someone to ask him why he uses her as an ideological center-a woman who despises Christianity (and all religion for that matter) and is pro abortion.

People say the VP choice never really matters. Certainly that wasn't the CSS with Sarah Palin. I think the choice of Ryan will matter very, very much and perhaps moreso than Palin. How will this all play out?

11 comments:

Nikto said...

I heard one commentator say that Romney had a choice between "safe" and "sizzle," and Romney picked sizzle.

Huh? Paul Ryan has no sizzle. He's just another guy like Romney, a Washington insider with flat delivery from a northern state. His main source of cred is that he wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare. That'll really draw in the senior citizens. He's a heartless policy wonk with even less personality than Romney.

But that was the point. A congenial conservative southerner would have upstaged Romney in every way, making the real conservatives wish that Romney would just up and die so their guy could become president. With Ryan, who cares?

last in line said...

"he has never worked in the private sector."

Beliefs first, qualifications second!

-just dave said...

You're right of course. The media will indeed dissect the Ryan budget, but since Democrats ignore the 1974 act requiring the submission of a budget, dissections will be one-sided.

I think this is a great opportunity to pair one ideology against another. The community organizer who feels like a spy behind enemy lines verse the businessman. The party who doesn't even pass a budget verse the budget chairman.

I like the odds.

Mark Ward said...

You like the odds? Based on what information?

By picking Ryan, Romney is (as you say) now making the election about ideology. I thought it was a referendum about the president. The shift in strategy means that what he was doing wasn't going to work and he and his team knew it. Now that we have shifted, the so called Ryan budget (which Mitt is already making noises that he will back away from) polls very poorly.

Not that it's really genuine anyway. Ryan voted for Medicare D, TARP, the first stimulus, and the first auto bailout. I guess Keynesian economics is OK when there is an R in office.

And, dave, the not passing a budget thing again? Really? You know as well as I do that budget resolutions aren't binding and that the House Appropriations Commitee is the entity that passes the binding law...which they have been doing all along. After all, we wouldn't want to talk about 1998, 2004, and 2006, would we?

Oh, and Harry Reid passed the Budget Control Act of 2011-a binding law which signicantly cut spending. Forget that one too, did ya?:)

-just dave said...

Thanks for the reference...this may by an educational opportunity for me. I'm refreshing myself on the the budget process in general and the Budget Control Act of 2011 in particular, but I've not come across the part that overrides the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act's requirement for the Senate to provide a budget (whether it goes to the President or not). Since you are certain of its existence, perhaps you could direct me to the passage you're referencing.

Mark Ward said...

Well, dave, parliamentary procedure is quite confusing. I have trouble with it myself at times.

Essentially, you have to take note of the fact that while the Senate is required to pass a budget, when they do so initially, it is not law. That's a budget resolution...a concurrent resolution. That's where the simple majority part comes in and they could surely do that. But they need 60 votes (filibuster rule) in order for it to take effect which means Harry Reid needs the GOP on board to pass the budget. He doesn't (except he did in the case of the BCA) and that's why he doesn't bother.

Further, budget resolutions focus on spending limits (among other things) and with the BCA of 2011 in place, any new budget resolution is redundant. Remember, budget resolutions do not control levels of spending. The budget resolution is all about very broad categories and, more or less, sets the parameters. The individual details are left to the various congressional committees and they often change how and where the expenditures will be in the various categories. This is what I meant above when I said they have been passing budgets all along and have, technically, complied with the law.

This is where the House comes in. They have their own budget ideas and really do control the purse strings with the House Appropriations Committee. This is why "passing a budget" does not provide a guaranteed outcome.

Here's a good primer for how the budget process works if you are interested.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

The budget resolution is supposed to be passed by April 15, but it often takes longer. Occasionally, Congress does not pass a budget resolution. If that happens, the previous year's resolution, which is a multi-year plan, stays in effect.

-just dave said...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious

last in line said...

I thought that budgets only needed a simple majority, just 51 votes is needed to pass those right?

Mark Ward said...

Yes, last, but in order to take effect they have to have 60 votes to avoid the filibuster. It's an example of how FUBAR the Senate is right now. The House just needs a simple majority on everything they vote on...why can't the Senate?

last in line said...

Can budgets be filibustered? I don't think they can. Other stuff - yes, but not budgets.

Mark Ward said...

The budget resolution can't be filibustered but remember that a resolution isn't law. Each of the committee get to decide how much is spent and where. Those part require the usual 60 votes for cloture. Essentially, in order for the budget to be "in effect," a simple majority will not work.