Paul Ryan Says He’s Not Eyeing The White House — Yet

Waiting until after 2014

  • Share
  • Read Later
J. Scott Applewhite / AP

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. is seen on Capitol Hill on March 18, 2013.

The 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate says he’s not yet thinking about running for president in 2016, but that he’ll start considering it after next year’s midterm election.

“I’ve decided I will consider this later,” Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan told the Des Moines Register. “Once I’m through with this term, then I’m going to give a hard look at it.”

Ryan, a leading Republican on budget issues, says he’s looking to find common ground in Congress on taxes and spending, and that he’s “not worrying about my own personal ambitions or career moves.”

[Des Moines Register]

11 comments
jmac
jmac

Ayn Rand Ryan:    Chairman of the House budget committee.  He doesn't want any revenue coming in - even to close loopholes the wealthy use to pay little or no taxes.  IF money comes in through closing loopholes,  he doesn't want it going to pay the bills.       Ryan:    If we look at this conference as an argument about taxes, we're not going to get anywhere. 

The man who can't do the math heads the budget committee.  

He'll consider running after the mid-terms?   In the meantime, the budget sits where immigration sits - beholden to the Teas and the wait to see what the mid-terms produce.    

fhmadvocat
fhmadvocat

Frankly, even though I consider myself a "Liberal" (mostly on social issues), I want Paul Ryan to run for President.  He is a numbers guy and I think he will present a coherent plan for the budget in the future.  Americans will see the real deal on whether to accept of reject Ryan's numbers. 

Maybe it is generational, but I am concerned about government spending.  I am a Generation X-er and I don't see Social Security or Medicare in my future once the Baby Boomers have spent all of the money.  We have to do something about our out  of control spending!  The problem is the economy depends too much on government spending that simply to cut it recklessly would damage our whole economy.  Government spending is like Heroin.  Going cold turkey will not work.  We need Methadone, like targeted tax cuts, an end to tax loopholes and tax reform so millionaires don't pay a lower rates than working folks.  We need to reform the whole medical system because one short day at a hospital should not cost one years salary.  We need to reform social security because we have less than 3 people paying in for each person who receives it.

Paul Ryan has some ideas, most of which I don't agree, but at least he has ideas.  Most politicians, both Republican and Democrat are burying their heads in the sand.

therealdude
therealdude

If he runs, I have no doubt he will be a very serious contender for the nomination. But probably not so much the general.

jamesgordon777
jamesgordon777

let  forrest  gump eye  whatever  he  wants  too .stupid is as  stupid  does

Hollywooddeed
Hollywooddeed

Please, eye it.  I will thoroughly enjoy rejecting the little twerp again.

Ohiolib
Ohiolib

@fhmadvocat I would agree with parts of what you said. We do need to have a serious discussion about our deficits and debt. The problem is, Ayn Ryans ideas will do little to solve those problems; if anything, his insistance on giving more money to millionaires will make things worse. You want ideas on solving our budget problems, look to the left. Here are some of mine:

 1. The corporate tax rate should be a minimum of 40%, effective rate. Corporations don't work or produce anything; people do. Claiming that corporations produce things is like claiming that shovels produce holes. They don't. At the end of the day, it's people that do everything. I'm all for write-offs of business expenses and basic costs; businesses, especially smaller businesses can't afford to lose them. Profits are a whole different story. I'll have sympathy for corporate profits when corporations have bodies. 

2. QUIT BOMBING EVERYONE!!  Ending stupid wars won't solve everything, but it's a good start. And there are conflicts, like Afghanistan, that just aren't realistically avoidable. That said, if we avoid unnecessary wars of choice, (like Iraq) the savings would be in the trillions, plus the costs of life and time. That said, why do we still have military bases in Germany? Embassies are reasonable, military bases in allied countries of little strategic importance are a waste of money. 

3. Change how we write our military budgets: This is a textbook case of waste and borderline fraud:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/07/30/10325/army-tank-could-not-be-stopped

For starters, let's break down bills into smaller pieces. If you want to fund something, fund it. Don't put a million riders, amendments, and foot notes in it. The only way I can think to minimize this is to require a 2/3s vote for any amendments or changes to a bill. Vote for something, or vote against it. 

4. Means-test social security. I know a lot of people won't like this, but we have to do something. Social security was designed to be a safety net, to keep people out of poverty. It wasn't meant to be a retirement plan. If someone works for most of their life as a productive, law-abiding citizen, I have no problems helping that person when they need it. I do have a problem with throwing money around. 

Many of our biggest expenditures-medicare and medicaid, military, interest on the debt-can't be solved overnight. It's taken us decades to dig ourselves int o this mess, and I suspect it will take at least as long to dig back out. But claiming that we should just let poor people die, or cutting taxes on the richest (and least productive) members of society will do little in the short run and hurt us in the long run. 

fhmadvocat
fhmadvocat

@Ohiolib @fhmadvocat I agree with most of what you said, however I have a few radical ideas of my own:

I think we would get rid of corporate taxes all together.  This is something Jimmy Carter once proposed.  Unlike Mitt Romney, corporations are not people.  In addition, corporate taxes only account for 8% of all tax revenue collected.  To replace it, let's tax everytime the income reaches the hands of its owners.  If the corporation pays something on behalf of its CEO, count that as income to the CEO and tax her or him accordingly.

I am a pacifist so by all means cut military spending!  There is no need to spend more than the next ten highest spending countries!

I completely agree with means-testing social security.  In reality, I have already taken more out of the system that I have put in (I just learned from my dad I received social security as a child because of my mom's illness though we did not need it).  Given what I will inherit from my parents, I will not need social security.  My father makes more money retired than I do working and he nicely enjoys a lower tax rate!

I think we need to take care of the poor which only cost the average tax payer $36 per year and stop giving money to billionaires who know how to message the tax code and costs us $6,000 per year!!

fhmadvocat
fhmadvocat

@Hollywooddeed @fhmadvocat Hollywood, I don't think Ryan is on my side.  The fact he still wants to cut taxes, or worse keep tax loopholes makes me really wonder if he is really wants to cut the deficit or simply give tax cuts to the rich.  What I like about Ryan is he is debating what I view are our real problems.  What I disagree with are his answers.  However, I think he is asking the right questions.  Would I vote for this guy? Not likely in one million years, but at least he gives us a real choice instead of fantasy.

Ohiolib
Ohiolib

@Hollywooddeed @fhmadvocat5. Mopve to fixed-price contracts, especially in defense. The cost overruns here are ridiculous; by measures, in the hundreds of billions. 

http://csis.org/publication/cost-and-time-overruns-major-defense-acquisition-programs-2011

The way to solve this is very simple: mover to fixed-rate prices on the bids. If a company runs over the costs, too darn bad. You agreed to the terms-in fact, you probably set them when you bid. The private sector doesn't seem to have a problem with this, so why should the public sector? Now, in the long run, this may not actually save much money as companies start providing more accurate bids. But it would at least make those costs more visible and predictable, even if they do go up.