POLICYMIC | Alexander Betses | August 16, 2012
America now has its Republican vice presidential candidate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Many in the media refer to Ryan as a “budget hawk” and quite the
“controversial” selection for Romney’s Republican Presidential ticket. Ryan says he wants to reduce spending and decrease taxes but he did vote for the bank and auto bailouts. He actually wanted the taxpayers to bear the burden of these financial institutions’ mistakes, saying, , “This bill offends my principles, but I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles.” That just does not make very much sense at all. Could Ryan possibly match up to the fiscal conservatism of another congressman, Ron Paul?
Ron Paul, along with his son, Senator Rand Paul, have been fighting to end bailouts. because true conservatives don't betray their principles or the American people by voting to bail out Wall Street banks and the automotive industry. These bailouts took close to a trillion dollars out of American taxpayers’ pockets and gave it to the private sector. Ron Paul and Paul Ryan are not similar at all. A Paul Ryan budget would go after Medicare and not be able to balance the budget for at least 30 years. A Ron Paul budget would slash militarism and balance the budget in three years. Let’s explore why the “budget hawk,” vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan pushed for these bailouts to occur in the first place.
In 2008, Paul Ryan stated that the TARP bailout was “ …in order to preserve this free enterprise system..” However In a free enterprise system, businesses must be allowed to declare bankruptcy. If this cannot occur because the business is “ too big to fail,” then we are not living in a free enterprise system. Bailouts do not allow for healthy competition for consumers’ dollars and they defeat free market principles. Prolonging businesses’ eventual failures will only make the big problem even bigger in the end.
Ryan could easily cut military spending overseas and end our country’s policing of the world. Instead, he would rather take Medicare from patients who truly need it by raising the qualification age from 65 years old to 67 years old. The 65 year olds who become sick and need medical intervention would have to wait until they turned 67. At this point, there would be a need for drastic and expensive medical treatments. These larger expenses are being prevented now with 65 year olds receiving treatment early on for harmful and life threatening diseases. By raising the age qualification for Medicare, spending would increase exponentially.
When a politician is the chairman of the congressional Budget Committee, but does not see the bailouts as potentially harmful, how can he help to lead a nation? The argument for the bailouts revolves on all sides. What has the leadership in Washington become? Why do all of these politicians find it so hard to be fiscally responsible. We approach yet another sad election year. Hopefully there will be light for real change in 2016.