A front-page story in Saturday’s Washington Post carries the headline, “Ryan’s funding requests blur image as deficit hawk” (different online). That is, Rep. Paul Ryan has sought federal funding for projects in his district, even when he has voted against the relevant spending program, such as President Obama’s $787 billion “stimulus” bill. But I don’t think that’s the best way to judge a congressman’s fiscal conservatism. The question is, did he vote against excessive spending? Did he work in committee, with his colleagues, and in the national debate to end programs and cut spending?
Mitt Romney’s selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate has been well received by the Republican faithful. Movement conservatives in particular have been energized with the pick given that, unlike Romney, Ryan is actually one of them.
Even though I’ve already made clear that I am less-than-overwhelmed by the thought of Mitt Romney in the White House, I worry that people will become to think I’m a GOP toady.
If nothing else, Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., as his running mate has made a dull and joyless campaign a little more interesting.
Paul Ryan is an excellent choice as running mate for Mitt Romney. He understands federal spending and tax policies in enormous detail. He has said that he started reading federal budgets when he was in high school. He’s also read Global Tax Revolution, my book with Dan Mitchell about the implications of globalization and tax competition. He knows that the American economy will not thrive with high tax rates, especially on business income and capital. He shares Mitt Romney’s goal of chopping the corporate tax rate to revive investment and job creation.
Average private sector wages in the United States rose 3.0 percent in 2011, which was more than the 1.2 percent average increase for federal government workers. This was the second year in a row that average private pay rose faster than average federal pay, but that comes after many years of an escalating federal pay advantage.
With the federal government closing in on its fourth consecutive budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion, the national debt is hurtling toward dangerous levels. If the nation is to avert a debt crisis, federal policymakers need to aggressively balance revenues. Business subsidies, or “corporate welfare,” are a good place to start.
According to the Associated Press, Mitt Romney supports postponing the sequestration cuts scheduled for January 2, 2013 by at least one year:
Cato has just released a new video, titled “The Truth about Sequestration,” that tells the real story about sequestration, the automatic budget cuts required by the Budget Control Act.
Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the “No More Solyndras Act.” As Taxpayers for Common Sense notes, however, the bill should probably be called the “More Solyndras Act” because it would still allow the Department of Energy to approve loan guarantee applications that were submitted by Dec. 31, 2011.