Paul Ryan's fiscal discipline is greatly exaggerated, in reality, he was one of the architects of the current deficit. I remember very clearly that he was supportive of very expensive measures that raised the deficit. Let's flashback to 2001.
In Bush's first year in office, his tax cuts were one of the main priorities of the Republican-controlled Congress. The Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act was supposed to create job growth and the Heritage Foundation even made the prediction that it would eliminate the National Debt by 2010 (http://origin.heritage.org/...), neither of which happened. We went from having a surplus, which President Clinton left, to huge deficits. $128 billion dollars in surplus (http://www.factcheck.org/...) was wiped out by trillions in tax cuts (http://www.cbpp.org/...). Paul Ryan supported that tax cut, even though there were warnings of crushing budget deficits. Check out the roll call vote and then the video of Ryan's speech in favor of the tax cuts.
http://clerk.house.gov/...
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...
For those who did not want to sit through that all that, I offer the transcript.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, the other side has nothing to offer but fear itself. As I watch these public policy debates coming to the floor of Congress, you can see two schools of thought at play here. One seeks to prey on the emotions of fear and envy in the American people and to exploit those emotions to keep more of their hard-earned money in Washington.
The other school of thought, what we are trying to achieve is to appeal to people's emotions of hope, of accomplishment, of success.
We punish success in the Tax Code today. The small businessman, the small businesswoman, the entrepreneur in society today, which is the engine that drives the American economy, is what gives us our jobs in this country; yet, we tax them at punishing tax rates, higher than we tax IBM, Exxon, the multinational corporations in this world.
What we are trying to achieve by lowering the tax rates on entrepreneurs, on small businesses, on the American families, down to 33 percent is to simply say that we recognize that what creates this economy, that what grows this economy, that what creates jobs are small businesses and entrepreneurs. [Page: H2212] We need to feed that engine, because if we fall victim to the politics of fear and envy, as the other side is suggesting, we will continue to take more and more dollars out of workers' paychecks. We will continue to raise the bar and the hurdle on what it takes to build a small business, to employ people, to risk-take and become an entrepreneur.
Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous toll gate in the middle class, on the way to becoming the middle class. We are penalizing success in this country. The other side wants us to continue to penalize success in this country. They want to appeal to the worst emotions in you.
They want to suggest that this is nothing more than a tax cut to Bill Gates' or Sam Walton's heirs. That is not what we are doing here. What we are trying to accomplish is this: You are overpaying your taxes. You ought to get some of your money back. We are protecting Medicare. We are modernizing Medicare. We are protecting Social Security.
We are paying down the national debt as fast as we can. And even after doing all of those things, you are still overpaying your taxes. What we are simply saying is rather than take your money and find new ways to spend it for you here in Washington, we want to give it back to the American people, put the money back into their paychecks as they overpay their taxes, and revive this engine of economic growth, small businesses and entrepreneurs, and prey on people's hopes and dreams and aspirations.
That is what this all about.
That is why it is important to lower that top rate to 33 percent. I know these numbers may be confusing to some. But what it means is whether or not we are going to answer the call to revive this struggling economy, whether or not we are going to put jobs in front of fear and envy, these are the things that are on the line right here. That is why it is important for us to pass this tax bill, because it is our job to grow this economy and save jobs in this country.
As you can see, sophomoric theatrics and no mention of the impact that the tax cuts would have on the deficit. But, this show isn't done yet, I'm not finished detailing yet.
The Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act or the Bush Tax Cuts II, a sequel worse than those direct-to-video movies that don't even have any of the actors from the original movie, if you get my drift. This is other part of the trillion dollar tax cut that raised the deficit. There is video of Ryan making a statement on the day of passage of this one two, but it's pretty standard as far as conservative rhetoric goes on tax cuts (he's labeled as Jim Ryun for a few seconds), but it shows his support for tax cuts on dividends.
http://clerk.house.gov/...
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in a colloquy. I would like to speak specifically about one provision in the bill before the House today regarding the double taxation of dividends.
As drafted, the bill applies a new 15 percent-5 percent rate structure to dividends paid by domestic corporations, while dividends paid by foreign corporations will be taxed at the new individual rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and as much as 35 percent.
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-based firms are a very important part of our economy and economic recovery. These companies employ 5.6 million workers right here in America. Furthermore, American taxpayers own approximately $1.8 trillion worth of foreign stocks. Approximately 900 non-U.S. companies are traded on U.S. stock changes.
Will the chairman correct this discrepancy as we move forward so as to ensure that the final bill passed by Congress reduces taxes on the dividends paid by both domestic and foreign-owned corporations and treats them equally?
Response from the then Ways and Means Chairman
Mr. THOMAS. I will tell the gentleman he raises an important point, but it is also a part of a larger tax policy problem.
Currently, as the gentleman may know, under the U.S. Tax Code we punish U.S. corporations for being U.S. corporations. Several provisions of our Tax Code put U.S. corporations at a disadvantage versus their international competitors. These flaws in the Tax Code force U.S. companies to move their headquarters overseas in order to compete. We must reform our Tax Code to improve our international competitiveness. The Committee on Ways and Means will be addressing this larger issue in this Congress.
With regard to the specific issue of dividend payments to U.S. citizens by foreign corporations, it is my intent as the legislation process proceeds to craft a solution that treats all American shareholders of either domestic or foreign-owned corporations fairly and equally, while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. Tax Code.
So, pretty standard conservative rhetoric, but definitely a strong show of support for a tax plan that would increase the deficit. Stay with me, 'cause I'm not done yet.
And now, for the last part, which is Medicare Part D, which was a giveaway that contributed more to the deficit. Under the plan, the government was not allowed to negotiate better prices for prescription drugs or re-import drugs at lower prices, which would have been very cost effective in the long run. Solutions that would have saved money were dismissed. An unfunded mandate, that cost trillions (http://www.gao.gov/...) (pg. 17).
http://clerk.house.gov/...
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/...
All of that is pretty standard conservative rhetoric too, but it's important to have the exact citations about these votes when posting diaries.
Now that we've looked at Ryan's deficit creating record, let's hash out the misrepresentations about Obamacare and cuts to Medicare. The cuts in Medicare are to private insurers, you know, subsidy (http://swampland.time.com/...). So, Obamacare is saving money, rather than gutting the program. It's basically the government stepping up and taking control of reimbursements to providers, so less gouging occurs (we know insurance companies and providers do gouge the system at times). Is the Romney-Ryan campaign going to let people know that? Of course not, it's more beneficial for them to lie. The truth is, under Bush, Paul Ryan did not know how to spell the word “NO” and that is where the deficit comes from.
Now that the deficit is out of control, which happened with his help, his solution is to solve the problem by burdening those who can least afford it, those on Medicare. The foolishness about vouchers also allows insurance companies to put their hand further into the cookie jar and manage care how they see fit. Seniors would end up getting less care under a voucher system, because for profit insurance doesn't benefit from people getting affordable care.
After years of voting for reckless spending on tax cuts that were guaranteed to the raise the deficit, Paul Ryan wants to play deficit hawk. I mean, really, Paul, it's time to stop deceiving.