Mondays are usually when I write about law, but there isn’t a lot going on out there right now. While I could have written about something, I decided it would be better to write a piece on something that has me fired up than to reach for something that doesn’t. What really has me ticked off right now is Paul Ryan as a vice presidential candidate.
If you haven’t read my articles before, let me be clear that I am NOT a Democrat, and frankly, Joe Biden is the worst vice president of my lifetime, and I certainly don’t think Paul Ryan will be that bad. I am a Libertarian supporting the Johnson/Gray campaign.
That said, Paul Ryan does not deserve to be vice president, and tomorrow I will explain why I think his nomination has effectively ended Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations. 
But for today, let me explain why he doesn’t deserve to be vice president, in a numbered and (mostly) logical list.
1) Paul Ryan has been in the House of Representatives since 1999.
2) The House controls the nation’s purse strings.
3) Paul Ryan voted for record deficits last decade.
4) Paul Ryan and other Republicans under Bush (along with the Baby Boom retirement) are primarily responsible for our current deficit, and even if Nancy Pelosi and crew had added no new spending, we would still have a trillion-plus deficit this year.
5) Paul Ryan’s primary “expertise” is the budget.
6) Paul Ryan is head of the House Budget Committee.
7) Paul Ryan is known as a “deficit hawk.”
8) Let me repeat, the House controls the nation’s purse strings.
9) We will have a near-record deficit this fiscal year.
10) Paul Ryan has produced a lengthy document known as the “Ryan Plan,” which fractionally slows the growth of federal spending—based on rosy assumptions.
11) In spite of putting our nation in fiscal jeopardy with his votes last decade and doing nothing to slow the growth of the deficit other than to produce a voluminous document while in the very powerful position of Chair of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan thinks he deserves a promotion to vice president because he’s a “deficit hawk” who knows how to deal with our nation’s fiscal woes.
Does anyone else see the problem with this picture? Mind you, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have worsened the mess they inherited from Paul Ryan, so don’t think I believe they deserve your vote either. But it’s pretty clear that the Romney/Ryan ticket does not. A failed Governor teamed up with a failure of a Congressman? Really? That’s the best the GOP can offer?
While I my not be on the winning side in November by voting for Governor Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray (two men with successful records in public service), at least I will sleep well on election night knowing that whatever comes next won’t be my fault. And if Johnson does pull off a miracle dark horse victory, I will sleep well that night knowing that I am responsible for whatever comes next.
This article is also posted at The Country Thinker.
Paul Ryan is more qualified to be Vice President (OR President, IMO) than Barack Obama is today, after 3.5 years of OJT. As was just said on the radio – we know more about Paul Ryan and his family today than we know about Barack Obama after 4 years – and Ryan hasn’t written two biographies. As for Joe Biden – I believe the reason Obama is alive today is fear that we could have a PRESIDENT Biden.
I have no disagreement that Obama and Biden are less qualified. All are career politicians. None have any personal accomplishments of note.
Ryan left college at 22. He went to DC to work as a staff aid, then a speechwriter, then a Congressman. His enire working career since leaving college is in DC.
Steve
“Paul Ryan and other Republicans under Bush (along with the Baby Boom retirement) are primarily responsible for our current deficit, and even if Nancy Pelosi and crew had added no new spending, we would still have a trillion-plus deficit this year.”
US spending is about 1 trillion dollars more in 2011 than it was in 2007.
While not an insignificant figure, it’s around $700 billion. Some of that is Social Security and Medicare increases from the Baby Boom retirement. But most programs are slated for annual increases – which have to be appropriated, of course, but a large percentage of the $700 billion comes from programs either created by, or continued under, Bush. The amount of “new spending from the Democrats has actually been relatively small – at least until ObamanationCare comes on line.
You bring up many great points. While I agree that Romney/Ryan leave a lot to be desired from a libertarian or especially a fiscal conservative viewpoint, but I must say I’m a bit put off by your emphasis on using the word, deserves, coming from your libertarian perspective.
I remember Milton Friedman answering a question about “Equal pay for equal work” where he stated, “…deserves is an impossible thing to decide. Who deserves what? Nobody deserves anything. Thank God, we don’t get what we deserve.”
I don’t even consider labeling myself a libertarian even though most of my personal values would have others labeling me as such, mainly because I do think Ron Paul should be chosen as President. Indeed, he must be chosen to get America much closer to its foundational roots of limited governmental power than any other guy, but it has nothing to do with him deserving it any more than any other guy. It only has to do with what I personally want, to maximize liberty for all and limit federal power, and he’s clearly the best choice out of the entire field to achieve that, to include Johnson.
I’ve seen you supporting Johnson over the past year. He’s a really nice and very smart guy and I agree with most of his perspectives. I also do agree he is a much, much, much better alternative than Obama or Romney, however, I’ve seen Johnson talk time and gain emphasizing his cost/benefit approach to everything. It always leaves me with a nagging feeling that in itself it leaves a lot to be desired and can continue to do great harm to our fragile republic. It may have done wonders in New Mexico with a smaller state government, but that may not work as well for him in the bloated bureaucracy of Washington. Also, it’s an excuse used to do just about anything and affix a label of it being not only legal, but also good and right. Cost/benefit is how all federal agencies approach instituting regulations over us. Indeed, it’s written in law that they must. How’s that working for us? We continue to lose our freedoms, one by one, incrementally.
How can you assign an arbitrary value of one man’s freedom over another’s in the cost/benefit equation? It’s more of an impossible task than trying to determine who deserves what and it has no legal standing under Constitutional law which is absolute. For example, they cannot win votes legally by promising some semblance of security to all by denying others their inalienable rights that our Constitution was put in place to protect. Yet they do consistently with anti-gun regulations to anti-smoking bans to the Patriot Act, NDAA, and TSA; all put in place with their cost/benefit approach, therefore it renders the whole system to be lawless by law.
The only thing any of us really deserve is to be free within the limitations of the only commandment of the commitment to freedom: Harm no one, and do what thou wilt. America apparently isn’t ready for that, for most feel we deserve something from others more than just our freedom no matter who it harms. It makes me sad.
I will give you kudos for pointing out a semantical gaffe. You’re absolutely correct that “deserve” is the incorrect term, and it doesn’t express what I think. A writer should know better than to have a slip like that. A much, much better title would have been “Why I think Paul Ryan Shouldn’t Be Vice President.”
I will give you kudos for pointing out a semantical gaffe. You’re absolutely correct that “deserve” si the incorrect term, and it doesn’t express what I think. A writer should know better than to have a slip like that. A much, much better title would have been “Why I think Paul Ryan Shouldn’t Be Vice President.”