Ryan budget offers a between prosperity and decline
Win much of the nation from the Great Plains to the Pacific and down to the Mexican border.
In September, the court at the heart of the region, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reread terms in one e in America today live in a country circumscribed by entitlement policies devised by an America that has steadily been disappearing. Those policies established more than a generation ago cannot possibly — in mathematical or demographic terms — support the America of the present, much less the America of the future. That is the stark reality.
We need to reform those policies or we shall go bankrupt, and raising taxes on the “rich” will not fix things. Even raising taxes on the middle class will not fix things. Nor will spending a trillion dollars more than we have on hand to fix things. Eventually, those trillion-dollar deficits have to be paid off. Facts are facts; the day of reckoning that our hayseed politicians have said was up the road a piece is here. We have to do something now and we can begin by growing the economy.
That is the burden of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s carefully thought-out budget for fiscal 2013. The way he would get the economy growing again is by lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to a more competitive 25 percent. He would allow American corporations to bring profits earned abroad home without penalty so they could invest in jobs and factories here. His budget would eliminate the complexity of the tax code on individuals and families and consolidate the tax brackets from the current six to two brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent. He argues that revenue would remain steady because of the elimination of special-interest loopholes and because of economic growth.
As for confronting the budgetary overhang, the Ryan budget offers disciplined spending cuts that amount to $5.3 trillion over the next decade. He would return to the states the responsibility for federal programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, for at the state level the needs of the citizens are better understood than at the national level. He would reorganize education and job training and make Pell grants dependent on need. Taking on the major force behind our budgetary exigency, Mr. Ryan plans a complete overhaul of health care, eliminating Obamacare and reforming Medicare. For those in or near retirement, there would be no change in Medicare. For those facing retirement a decade from now, the House budget provides guaranteed coverage for various options to be financed by “premium support.” Recipients can bid for various options made available by competing insurance companies. As Mr. Ryan said in the Wall Street Journal the day before he announced his budget, “Forcing health plans to compete against each other is the best way to achieve high-quality coverage at the lowest cost.”
That same day Mr. Ryan announced on Youtube, “Americans have a choice to make — a choice that’s going to determine our country’s future. Will it be the future that looks like the America we know — one of greater opportunity, greater prosperity — or more of what we’re seeing today, debt, doubt and decline?” That stress on choice is becoming a theme of Republicans, as opposed to President Obama’s Entitlement State.
It’s a choice of one policy over another policy, choice over the government straitjacket. Choice is the natural consequence of a people who believe in personal liberty.
By making choices in public policy, one creates competition and all the benefits that come from competition. One creates better policies, policies suited for individuals’ varying needs. One creates efficiencies in distribution and in design of policies. Ever since the New Deal, the Nanny State mentality has been developing ever more intrusive policies to govern our lives and to limit our freedoms. The result is the Entitlement State and the trillions of dollars of looming debt. Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues think their budget can eventually eliminate the debt and get the economy growing again. Moreover, they believe a sufficient number of Democrats are concerned about our freedom and the budget overhang to act in a bipartisan manner — at least on some of the matters he has taken up. We shall see, but for now, the Senate Democrats have not even attempted a budget in three years. such agreement between Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana — the Red River Compact. Taking a provision universal to interstate water pacts, the court said that despite decades of history and the obvious reason states entered into these binding arrangements in the first place, a state could withhold water otherwise due it under the law from another state.
No act of legal revisionism by any circuit court in the country has so much potential to generate economic disruption. If the Supreme Court declines to review, the ruling will become law. Through the 10th Circuit’s states flow such essential rivers as the Colorado, on which cities from Denver to
The government, in direct opposition to the transparency President Obama promised, just loves to do big things in secret — like Obamacare’s Senate approval at midnight on Christmas Eve of 2009 — and release broad mandates on Friday nights, when the media are less likely to cover them. In fact, much of the news that Mr. Obama and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be forcing religious employers to violate their consciences was released on Fridays.
Not breaking from tradition, Mrs. Sebelius and company decided to release the latest attack on the First Amendment on the eve of St. Patrick’s Day, during March Madness — classy. That’s when Mrs. Sebelius issued a “clarification” to the HHS mandate, the unprecedented assault on individual rights and religious freedom. It’s a direct shot at college students and all universities, regardless of whether or not they have a moral objection to providing contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance plans.
The Obama administration is forcing all universities, including Catholic ones, to provide this coverage to their students. If Catholic colleges and universities object, they have a year to figure out how to “violate their consciences,” as Cardinal Timothy Dolan pointedly said.
There are 678 Students for Life groups on more than 600 campuses spread throughout this country. The government is telling them that they must buy into an insurance plan that uses their money, paid in premiums, to provide fellow students with drugs that cause abortions. The outrage and fury these students feel is indescribable. How dare the government tell them they must fund the extermination of unborn children, who are at the most vulnerable stage in life.
Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified in front of Congress that the government should be paying for her birth control because it’s too expensive, does not represent us. Our students take personal responsibility for their actions and do not want the government forcing Los Angeles and San Diego depend, and the Yellowstone, the source of water for the northern fracking fields, not to mention Fort Worth and Dallas, which are directly involved in the appeal. Already Wyoming, another 10th Circuit state, is considering withholding Colorado River water from downstream Colorado and Denver.
Creative rereading of long-established terms of law and contract is exactly the kind of judicial revisionism that has fostered chaos in fields ranging from tort to environmental law. Do we really need the vast volume of litigation and legal surprises that have become all but routine in those sectors seeping into yet another vital area of the nation’s legal structure? In our factious contemporary political life, can such farreaching interstate agreements as our water compacts, signed in the more placid periods, be put back together if the courts pull them apart?
On Friday, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to review the 10th Circuit decision in Tarrant. On small hinges, great doors swing. On this case rests a vast future for the American West and, with it, for the entire country. them to pay for someone else’s birth control, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. But further, they recognize that this is only the beginning of the government’s control over our lives if this mandate is allowed to stand.
If we don’t fight this intrusive, unprecedented and unconstitutional ruling, the government will no have limits. Stemming from Obamacare, this monstrous law will face its day at the Supreme Court next week. If Obamacare is not struck down by the court, I fear to think what the government will do with its newfound power to force Americans to purchase a particular product, whether they want to or not.
This is the not the America our Founding Fathers envisioned. Our nation was created by people who were escaping religious oppression. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Sebelius aren’t “accommodating” anyone, much less people who are morally opposed to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. They are depriving Americans of basic freedoms.
Obamacare must go, and the HHS abortion mandate must go along with it. Forcing college students to pay for their fellow students’ contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients is unconscionable. The administration obviously knows this is a bad idea because the news was released when no one would be paying attention.
This fight isn’t over. In fact, it is just beginning. The future of our nation, our freedoms and our liberties is at stake, and we aren’t backing down.