I used to have great respect for Paul Ryan until I started paying closer attention to the things he was saying. The more I learn to observe and read between the lines of our politicians the more I understand that there are basically three types of people running the branches of our government. First there the Obama types whose mission is to abuse and misuse their power to take from and control the people that the government is supposed to serve. Next there are people like Ted Cruz whose mission is to defend us against tyrants like Obama by upholding, restoring and enforcing the Constitution, which was designed by our fore fathers for the express purpose of limiting the reach of government. Then there are those who see their roles as peacemakers between the tyrants and the constitutionalists. That third category is where Paul Ryan falls.
Like many republicans, I believe Paul Ryan probably came to Congress with reasonably noble intentions and he’s probably a nice man; but noble intentions have a funny way of getting sidetracked when people focus on math instead of on principles. Ryan, known for his encyclopedic knowledge of the national budget, concerns himself with making the numbers work as if the principles that form the basis of this nation don’t matter as long as you can balance the budget. This is the greatest of ironies, because restoring the government to its limits under the Constitution would naturally resolve our spending problems. Maybe Mr. Ryan doesn’t want to be out of a job.
My lightbulb moment with respect to Ryan came when he began talking about “means testing” as a way to save Social Security and Medicare. As I made the case in a prior post (“Means Testing and Marxism,” March 2013), means testing equates to classic Marxism: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” I have challenged readers before, and will do so again now, to explain to me how means testing is any different than Marxism when it comes to the final result. The only difference is that wealth transfer was the undisguised objective of Marx, whereas for Ryan it is the consequence of the misguided goal of saving socialism in America. In addition we know now that Mr. Ryan is cozy with the amnesty crowd and hasn't stood up against raising the debt ceiling.
This nation as we know it is in grave danger, perhaps irretrievably so, and we need a warrior, not a compromiser. I beseech the members of the Freedom Caucus to stand firm and make the ouster of Boehner lead to something meaningful. Say “NO” to Paul Ryan.