The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

When All Else Fails, Paul Ryan, Try Liberty

Posted on | August 18, 2014 | 64 Comments

by Smitty

there is an alternative: the Founders’ vision, which puts individuals, their families and their communities—not government—at the center of American life.

What does this vision look like in action? For starters, it favors choice and competition over government-run solutions.

It would make health care a true market with transparent prices and more choices. It would empower Americans to make their own health decisions. Instead of top-down price controls imposed by bureaucrats, we’d have bottom-up competition driven by millions of consumers. That won’t just lower health-care costs; it will improve the quality of care.

The vision also means promoting a foreign policy that rejects relativism and embraces exceptionalism, ensuring our prosperity and security.

It would promote pro-market policies that benefit consumers instead of pro-business policies that favor the wealthy and well connected. It would roll back regulations that serve no purpose except to stifle enterprises, big and small. That will encourage competition and innovation, and get our economy growing so that people can start working again.

And instead of managing poverty, we’d actually be fighting it. Today, we’re spending almost $800 billion on 92 federal antipoverty programs—and yet we have the highest poverty rate in a generation. That’s because the solution can’t be found in a federal bureaucracy; it lies within individual Americans and the community that surrounds and supports them.

As it stands, we’re not empowering people; we’re overseeing them. That’s got to change. We need to see an individual’s problems and potential. Our goal shouldn’t be to simply meet their needs; we should help them tap into their talent and achieve their goals.

That’s why I’ve proposed a plan that would reform our poverty programs by creating federal opportunity grants.

Real quick, Paul: the Founder’s vision is NOT another godforsaken Federal program. You want to restore prosperity? Allow people to opt out. To walk away from paying for entitlements. To just say: “Shag these bad investments, I know better what to do with my money.”

Calling your bluff here, Paul:

When you compare liberal progressivism’s promises with the future that conservatism can actually deliver, the choice is clear.

Conservative Progressivism is scant improvement. Liberty, Mon Frer: do you speak it?

via HotAir

Comments

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    It doesn’t matter what federal programs are chosen, the Framers would never have embraced the notion that the federal government was responsible for the individual’s health, safety or well-being.

    The problem is the basic concept established by Obaminablecare, that the federal government is ultimately responsible for seeing to it that the individual gets health care, but to “disestablish” that principle, we have to be willing to say that if someone simply cannot provide for himself, and he will die without health care, then he dies, plan and simple. I am willing to say that! How many other people are?

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Ryan spent way too much time with our GOP elites. They corrupted him.

  • richard mcenroe

    The people who would have to pay for it and won’t benefit by it — most every working American — DO NOT WANT NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE, whether it wears a donkey or elephant label. The senescents in DC seem to be incapable of realizing this.

    So after we deal with the first priority of getting the actual thieves and psychopaths of the Democratic Party out of power, we must make an unceasing effort to remove the doddering old rentseekers of our own party who will always, always, always seek to enrich or empower themselves at out expense. By whatever means.

  • richard mcenroe

    And every time I hear people speculate as to whether Romney should take a second shot, I remember that Ryan was his guy.

  • TelegraphAve

    That’s because the majority of the American public is misinformed, and has taken propaganda as fact, especially the big lie that we have the worlds best healthcare system . People over 60 already have nationalized heLthcare and if you attempted to take it away they would kill you. The majority of the public wanted healthcare reform, and that’s why it was undertaken. There was no question that the old system was too costly, and inefficient.

  • texlovera

    Healthcare reform =/= Obamacare, which is what we “got” and what the majority opposed…

  • TelegraphAve

    Please, say it! And make sure your reps do, too! It will guarantee democrat victories are permanent.

  • Rob Crawford

    Fitting name — a horrid street in a failed Progressive cesspit.

  • TelegraphAve

    Obamacare is a compromised system based on conservative ideas, and is not universal healthcare. Single payer, orcat least a hybrid system that included a public option is what we should have had. The alarmism, and outright lies by insurance companies, conservative media, and other interests made sure it never even came close to fruition. It’s unfortunate that so many Americans still live in a Cold War mentality that equates single payer healthcare with totalitarian communism. Fact is the state is no longer a threat. The free market is the real threat now, and has created it’s own form of totalitarianism.

  • TelegraphAve

    I know, that’s why the Bay Area has the highest real estate values in the country, and is leading innovation.

  • TotallyPeeved

    Snort. You meant that’s why Sodom by the Bay is on the top of the real estate bubble and is leading in perversion, right?

  • Art Deco

    I think if it’s your view that a nightwatchman state is the only acceptable political economy, you’re bound to be disappointed in the policy mix any working politician is going to offer you.

    The nightwatchman state has a very thin history as an actually existing social form; Calvin Coolidge’s America was studded with public schools, state asylums, state sanitoriums, and veterans’ hospitals. Those are ‘entitlements’ too, and have a nearly one to one correspondence with extant programs (e.g. Medicaid financing of long-term care).

    That aside, there’s a reason for the cliche ‘third rail of American politics’ as applied to Social Security. Unlike other activities of the federal administration, this isn’t a patronage mill for rent-seekers. The constituency for it is pretty much the whole population, give or take a few who could indubitably do better without it. It would be quite an achievement to simply restructure it to end the secular increase in public consumption devoted to it and to Medicare. Don’t screw with the geezers. Unlike the old AFDC clientele, their capacity to adapt to abrupt changes in their economic circumstances is limited and they’ve been planning all their working life for their current state.

    The federal government is wretchedly encrusted with barnacles. Just clearing them off would be achievement enough. Leave the fantasies to the stoners in the Libertarian Party.

  • Pingback: Paul Ryan is hanging with a bad crowd… | Batshit Crazy News()

  • DeadMessenger

    Dana, I would modify one word in your comment. I would change “cannot” provide to “will not” provide. I have no problem providing for people are actually legitimitely disabled, i.e., not the sort of “disabled” people who throw their handicapped hanger on their rearview mirror after parking in front, then sprinting for the store.

    It’s the number of perfectly able-bodied men and women I have to provide for that I object to. When I have to struggle to make ends meet because of taxes, including the Obamination tax, then I see a woman in the grocery with sculptured nails, an iPhone, hair extensions, designer clothes and bling whip out her welfare card and food stamps, I about lose it. I say, get a job, beyotch, and buy your own stuff.

  • DeadMessenger

    Yes…apt picture from not-so-batshitcrazynews.com.

  • Quartermaster

    Anywhere there is single payer the system is in trouble. The Germans had to back off as their system was going bankrupt. The system in Soviet Canuckistan is unworkable, that’s why if they can afford to do so, they come south for treatment. The Brit’s NHS is an atrocity that is simply killing people.
    We did have the best system in the world, and it did have flaws. Obamacare, however, is simply an unsustainable atrocity, and what you are pushing is just as bad.

  • Quartermaster

    FedGov has no authority to deal in social welfare period.

  • Quartermaster

    Indeed.

  • kilo6

    That’s because the majority of the American public is misinformed, and has taken propaganda as fact, especially the big lie that we have the worlds best healthcare system…

    That’s an interesting assertion. Although I agree that our society in general and “news” media especially are ripe with propaganda (and I mean ALL so-called news media) this statement reflects a rejection of the idea of representative government. It assumes a certain class of people just know better how to run everyone else’s lives. Is government supposed to assume the role of archetypal mother ?

  • Art Deco

    The problem with this statement was identified by Robert Bork a generation ago. He offered that you could make a passable argument that printing paper money is not a delegated power, but a federal judge who attempted to enjoin the issuance of paper currency would not be a conscientious jurist, “he would be a mad man”.

    Programs like Social Security are very much incorporated into people’s long term planning. They are ’embedded’ in ways other federal programs are not.

    I once had occasion to ask one person in a forum like this if he would countenance a constitutional amendment that would retrospectively legitimate a number of federal practices, including social insurance schemes. It would be more difficult to dismantle Social Security than to pass such an amendment. He says ‘hell, no”. But he also objects to the idea that public policies my be a function of abstract conceptions of justice or prudence because “The Constitution!” tells him all he needs to know and he should simply never be asked what is it that makes a policy inadvisable (as if the Constitution had been brought to us by Moses on a pair of stone tablets).

  • Art Deco

    It’s the number of perfectly able-bodied men and women I have to provide for that I object to.

    Their median age is past 70.

  • Quartermaster

    The problem with Bork is that he was shown to be a madman himself. The
    bottom line is that if the constitution does not specifically empower FedGov to do some thing, then FedGov does it anyway, then rule of law has ceased to exist.

    People like to appeal to the rule of law, but it has become, at best, simply a concept that politicians pay lip service to. Bork was part of the problem, as are the 9 black robed fools on SCOTUS and the rest sitting on Federal Benches.

  • TelegraphAve

    No, it’s just in demand property due to a thriving tech industry, and the greatest climate, and landscapes in the country. And of course for you prudes sexual freedoms, and expression equals perversion.

  • TelegraphAve

    Do you know how much food stamps cost each individual taxpayer? about a dollar per person. And beyond your 80s Reagan era image of welfare queens milking the system the vast majority receiving EBT are the working poor. Does that dollar really put you out that much? Face facts: there are no longer enough jobs for everyone, especially with growing technological unemployment where automation replaces labor, and corporations seeking to cut labor costs through outsourcing. It is the outsourcing of factory labor that has done the most damage to our minority communities, and those same people you like to believe sit around getting their nails done. I notice conservatives hate context and history when addressing social issues and believe everything can be divided into good and bad.

  • TelegraphAve

    Actually the general welfare clause of the constitution allows for social programs, and assistance. It’s amazing that devout Christians are the most in favor of social Darwinism, and Satanic greed.

  • DeadMessenger

    Can’t really argue with you there, QM.

  • DeadMessenger

    The median age of able-bodied people receiving welfare and food stamps is 70? I’d have to question that, just from simple observation.

  • DeadMessenger

    Yes it does put me out. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “…if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

    There would be jobs if the morons in the federal government were not put there by entitlement groupies. Federal job-killing policies are all the rage now, it seems.

  • Art Deco

    The problem with Bork is that he was shown to be a madman himself.

    He was nothing of the kind, and no sane individual ever suggested he was. In that context, he was discussion the application of the notion of stare decesis

    No, the rule of law has not ceased to exist, nor did it in 1935. You do have a problem to address. My suggestion is you figure out a practical pathway from here to there in addressing it. An injunction forbidding the issuance of Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursement is likely to leave you in Chinese interesting times.

  • Art Deco

    No it doesn’t, unless you regard the clause as a generalized grant of authority. If it is, why are those specific delegations there?

  • Art Deco

    TANF, last I checked, had about 4 million people enrolled. BO has attempted to gut the time limits, so it may have increased it’s census. General relief still exists in New York and a few other states. In New York, there’s a two year per lifetime time limit on benefits.

    SNAP benefits average about $270 per household per month. The program is a problem, but people are not exactly livin’ large on $270 a month in grocery subsidies.

  • Art Deco

    Do you know how much food stamps cost each individual taxpayer?

    About $260 per capita per annum, IIRC, or about $700 per household.

  • Art Deco

    Obamacare is a compromised system based on conservative ideas,

    Will this idiot meme never die. A researcher employed by the Heritage Foundation floated a sketch of a revised medical care finance system which included a participation mandate. Not one attentive Republican in 100 has ever heard of this man, but supposedly the Republican Party is responsible for Obama’s policy failures because Robert Rector’s policy sketch and the Obamacare fiasco had this single feature in common.

    I take it you think in talking points.

  • Art Deco

    While we are at it, Dr. Rector’s white paper was issued 20 years ago.

  • Art Deco

    No, it was undertaken because you ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ and a very vain man wanted a policy monument to himself and does not have a head for details.

    That’s because the majority of the American public is misinformed,

    And you rely on Daily Kos.

  • Quartermaster

    It does not! Madison, who wrote the bloody thing, said specifically that it applied only inside the bounds of the enumerated powers. Allowing social welafare under teh general welfare clause is a completely tortured interpretation and is typical of the lawlessness of the left.

  • Quartermaster

    Sorry, but Bork was a madman and was just as lawless as the rest. He wanted his brand of lawlessness, just not of some others.

    And, sorry, but rule of law ceases when you pull the sort of unconstitutional nonsense seen in the new deal and in Lincoln’s activities in 1861-1865. Once rule of law ends, as you point out in your last paragraph, it can be hellatiously hard to back up. What you point out is exactly against the point you attempt to make.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Our representatives are probably too chicken to run on the truth, but the truth is that if the federal government doesn’t guarantee health care — whether through Obaminablecare or something else — the result has to be that some who need it don’t get it. And I am fine with that: the whole basis of capitalism is that if you don’t pay for something, you don’t get it, and I see no reason why that shouldn’t apply to food, clothing, housing and health care.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    If you read the anti-federalist arguments of people such as Patrick Henry, in fighting against ratification of the Constitution, you will see that virtually everything that they predicted that ratification would do has come to pass.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Oh, bovine feces! Of course there are enough jobs for everyone, because we are, in effect, importing Mexicans to do them! The illegal immigrants come here (mostly) to work, and they can and do work, because there are so many good, able-bodied, noble American citizens who find working for a living somehow beneath them.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Thing is, I don’t care how much they cost the average taxpayer; we should not provide them at all!

  • TelegraphAve

    Snore….you’re a cold hearted person, and thanks for pointing out once again why religion has outlived it’s usefulness and served as nothing more than a tool of social control.

    Second, you are oblivious to the numerous factors killing jobs. The least of them is environmental regulations which should be respected. Amazing how Christians are all for sacrificing Gods green earth for Mammon.

  • TelegraphAve

    For who? Average cost for foodstamps if you’re making 50-60k is 36 dollars per year, or ten cents per day.

  • TelegraphAve

    Yeah, better for families to go hungry in the most prosperous nation on earth because your version of morality is being disregarded. Disgusting.

  • TelegraphAve

    No there aren’t, and those jobs are so low paying they would do nothing to change the need for EBT. Most of the people receiving them work but can’t afford food, plus s their other expenses. Ironically you would rather the state pick up the tab for corporations who you defend from minimum wage hikes which would eliminate most of the need for food subsidies.

  • Art Deco

    Sorry, but Bork was a madman and was just as lawless as the rest.

    You know, there’s a certain irony incorporated into this utterance juxtaposed to the following paragraph.

  • Quartermaster

    Patrick Henry was a serious student of human nature. The one thing that remains constant in history is human nature and human nature tends towards lawlessness.

  • Quartermaster

    Don’t choke on the irony.

  • TelegraphAve

    How about we cut off the disabled? Children? make you feel better? Ya know, who cares if people eat or have healthcare! What’s really important or ideological abstractions and holding on to them no matter the cost!

  • kilo6

    …religion has outlived it’s usefulness and served as nothing more than a tool of social control.

    So what exactly are you proposing aside from cliches?
    The collectivist philosophy advocated by most “progressives” (a misnomer is there ever was one) makes the Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition look appealing by comparison. Unless you’re an advocate of a system of Volunteerism/Anarchism akin to Lysander Spooner you’re just advocating your own prefered social control system.

    Also, pick a side and stay on it. If you’re an Atheist why are you criticising people using Christian terms? (Other than being intellectually inconsistent)