Obama to Republicans on National Debt: Heads I win, Tails you lose

Every time we reach another national debt crisis fork in the road (debt ceiling, continuing resolution, fiscal cliff, etc.), Barack Obama flips a coin. Right before doing so, he sets the rules: heads I win, tails you lose. The problem is that his opponents accept the terms.

It's common knowledge that Obama is quite familiar with the Cloward-Piven strategy. In fact, he's been implementing it since he was first inaugurated in 2009. That strategy is to so overwhelmingly burden entitlement programs that the system eventually collapses. The strategy was originally created in the 1960's and the Obama administration has applied it in a 21st Century world (Obama phones just one example).

As the debt climbs higher and higher, Obama banks on two theorems he might see as a win/win situation (heads and tails):

1. The collapse of the society Cloward-Piven strategists want, gets closer.
2. Arrest / reversal of the process becomes increasingly more difficult as collapse approaches.

Theorem number one is precisely why Obama doesn't just appear to be disinterested in solving the debt crisis; his actions and demeanor clearly demonstrate that he's interested in furthering it (heads I win). The lavish vacations and runaway spending that seems ridiculously outrageous to clear-thinking individuals will never embarrass him because it's all part of his plan. The longer his opponents attempt to embarrass him, the more he spends because he knows he either has those opponents snookered or neutered (Boehner saying he 'absolutely' trusts Obama is a case in point). The reason he's behaving like a man who wants to collapse the economy is because he does.

The more debt the country goes into, the closer we get to the endgame of the Cloward-Piven strategy - collapse.

Yet, for some reason, Obama's political opponents who have the power to confront this problem (House leadership), refuse to admit the truth and, subsequently allow Obama to further test and reinforce his first theorem. This can be seen perfectly in Speaker John Boehner's refusal to attach an Obamacare de-funding mechanism to the Continuing Resolution, which means a monstrous steroid injection to both theorems. That Rep. Paul Ryan put forth a budget that de-funds Obamacare while also knowing it hadn't a chance of passing, demonstrates that Obama's opponents know what's right but refuse to do it.

The longer theorem number one can be tested before Republican leadership decides to arrest and reverse the process, the better it is for Obama because it will only strengthen theorem number two.

Sequestration gave us a look into what Obama would do if Speaker John Boehner, et. al. chose to test theorem number two on a more grandiose scale, like say, the upcoming CR (tails you lose).

Up until sequestration actually happened, the Republicans never really knew how Obama would handle things if the former never caved because... Republicans always seemed to cave. Whether it was the debt ceiling, CR's, or the fiscal cliff, in the end, Obama always got another blank check and the national debt has just continued rising. As such, the president has been able to further test both theorems.

When sequestration happened, we got our first glimpse at Obama's playbook if Boehner, et. al. ever made a serious attempt to reverse the country's self-destructive fiscal course. The cancellation of White House tours and the release of hardened criminals were indicators. In the first instance, American citizens were told to stay off their own property. It wasn't just unnecessary, political, petty, and punitive - it was also symbolic. More seriously, the decision to release thousands of hardened criminals was meant to threaten a much larger White House-sanctioned prison release if House leadership decided to finally deal with the debt crisis.

In essence, Obama was saying that if the opposition attempted to confront the real debt problem, he would hold America hostage. This communicates something else as well, namely, that Obama isn't as eager to test theorem number two as he is theorem number one. He's acting like a man who wants to reach the Cloward-Piven endgame by never having to win a game of chicken over theorem number two. The administration's handling of sequestration did more harm to Obama than it did to House Republican leadership, which is why the latter should ultimately force Obama's hand.

If this administration was so willing to use sequestration to so transparently harm Americans, what would it do if the government was shut down because House leadership decided not to pass that CR?

Perhaps Obama doesn't want us to find out because he knows his actions will finally be transparently his alone and that he will lose.

The Ryan Boehner two-step on Obamacare?

It's a tried and true Republican establishment practice. When your side is not in power, talk tough. When your side is not in power, seek compromise and acquiesce. Now we're seeing that principle at work within the Republican Party itself.

The latest example comes courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). When it comes to de-funding Obamacare, Boehner has the power to actually either make it happen or oversee a government shutdown by allowing a vote on an amendment that would be added to the Continuing Resolution (CR), which would fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Why do we need a CR again? Oh yeah, because the Democrats haven't passed a budget.

That said, according to Byron York, when presented with the opportunity to tie passage of the CR to the de-funding of Obamacare, House Leadership (Boehner) not only refused to allow a vote on the amendment but that if he had, it would have passed. So, the man with the power to essentially de-fund Obamacare chose not to exercise that power.

Enter Ryan. In an obvious attempt to satiate overwhelming conservative opposition to Obamacare and make it appear that the House is doing all it can to de-fund it, Ryan introduced a budget which incorporates the de-funding ob Obamacare that he knows - as does Boehner - will not pass. To give House leadership the benefit of the doubt, it may be banking on a long-term strategy based on a self-evident truth that Obamacare will one day fail and Ryan's multiple budgets and predictions will be vindicated.

However, that's based on a flawed premise that liberals have the ability to admit when they're wrong. Moreover, the House Republicans are essentially doing nothing now in the hopes that they will be proven right when the country is in a shambles. Wouldn't a better idea be to do all you can now to prevent such a known outcome?

Here is Ryan talking tough when he can do so all day long without consequence because... his budget will not pass and Obamacare will not be de-funded.

Via CNS News:



Contrast that with Boehner last week, likely one day before the CR was passed without permitting a vote on the amendment to include Obamacare's de-funding. When asked if such an amendment would be part of the CR, Boehner not only didn't talk tough, he didn't even answer the question:

 

To demonstrate that Boehner knows how to talk tough when he's not in power, take a look at this from 2009, when he expressed OUTRAGE over the stimulus package, slamming the bill on the House Floor.

Why? Because it didn't matter and made for great theatrics:

Problem with Republican Leadership: Lack of Self-Respect

There is a fine line between taking the high road and losing your self-respect by not fighting back. If the 2012 elections taught us anything, it's that the Republican establishment doesn't know where that line is.

The leadership vacuum on the Republican side of the aisle keeps getting larger, louder, and even more obvious. If there is one common message from conservatives when it comes to the establishment, that message is to fight. The unwillingness to fight is why Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama in the election; the base didn't turn out.

The Obama administration knows this and is banking on its Republican opposition doing the same thing in the 2014 midterms so the Democrats can take back the House.

There comes a point when refusing to fight only garners more contempt from your opposition and even less respect from your own side. Planting their flag on what they perceive to be the moral high ground didn't work in the last election and it won't work in the next one. It's becoming increasingly obvious that while Republican leaders in Congress think they are better positioned by not lowering themselves to the left's level, they are also losing self-respect by not standing up for themselves. It's antithetical to leadership and when you don't lead, you lose followers.

Two incidents took place at Obama's second inauguration that illustrate this anecdotally.

First, Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee was booed and it was allegedly initiated by a Department of Justice Attorney named Dan Freeman. By the way, that charge was alleged by Freeman himself:

Via BizPac Review:

Second, House Speaker John Boehner got the Michelle Obama eye-roll. Watch the body language. At the :02 mark, Boehner taps Michelle on the left arm to jokingly get her attention about something. She then proceeds to put that left arm on the table, as if to say, 'don't touch me'. Boehner then says something else at which the first lady rolls her eyes.

h/t WZ:

The Democratic Party views the Republican Party leaders with contempt, sheer and utter contempt. The Obama agenda, as enunciated by David Plouffe is to so divide the Republican Party that the Democrats take the House in 2014.

Via the Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.

“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”

“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.

Granted, the two inauguration day incidents involving Ryan and Boehner mean nothing in and of themselves but they speak volumes when it comes to an unwillingness to fight on the part of Republican leadership. The administration is clearly banking on being able to continue bullying the leaders of their opposition.

This will serve two purposes. It will cause Republican leadership to continue rolling over, giving Obama what he wants and it will cause the conservative / Tea Party wing to sour on their Party's leadership. A consequence of that disenfranchisement will be staying home on election day in 2014. This will de-energize, de-motivate, and depress the conservative base in 2014. Why wouldn't Team Obama go that route? It worked for them in 2012.

Conservative voters carried all the water in 2010 and Republican victories were sweeping but Republican leaders prevented the Party from doing what it was put in power to do. That is why the base didn't turn out.

Team Obama knows that and will attempt to replicate it.

Consider the case of Ashley Judd running against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Last month, she trailed him by four points. Yes, four points! If she wins, it will be because McConnell will have chosen not to fight. It won't be because he wasn't moderate enough.

The Republican Party leadership continues to let the schoolyard bully take its lunch money.

If it is going to actually lead, it will have to stand up to the bully sometime between now and November, 2014:

Report: House Majority Whip responsible for Boehner's 'purge list'

There appears to be a source for Breitbart who has access to the goings-on inside House Republican leadership circles when it comes to the now infamous 'purge list' John Boehner used to oust four conservatives from the Budget and Financial Services Committees. If this source is correct, Rep. Paul Ryan's role in the purge may also be coming into clearer focus.

Via Breitbart:

A House GOP source has confirmed to Breitbart News that House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy was the one who drafted the secret criteria list House Speaker John Boehner used in his purge of conservatives from House committees.

The source, someone with inside knowledge of how Boehner conducted the purge, told Breitbart News that McCarthy crafted the list, which included a scorecard of where several conservative members stood on certain votes. According to the source, it’s unclear at this time whether McCarthy made the list of his own accord or if he did so at the request of somebody else in GOP leadership – like Boehner or House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The source alleges that McCarthy brought the criteria list to the House GOP Steering Committee where it was used to purge four conservatives from their House committee spots.

As for Ryan, not only is he being conspicuously silent on this whole thing but he is both on the Steering Committee, which includes 31 members, and chairman of the House Budget Committee, which saw two conservatives jettisoned. Breitbart reported earlier that a GOP leadership aide originally suggested Ryan and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Financial Services Committee chairman, were responsible for the ouster of two conservatives from each committee.

However, Hensarling has been quite critical of the move while Ryan has been in stonewalling mode.

In short, this entire purge thing stinks and Ryan, who has enjoyed conservative - as well as establishment - support, is looking a bit more establishment with every development in this story.

In any case, those responsible for this purge are using the same tactics employed by the Democrats over the last four years, which they decried at every turn. Ryan was one of the most critical opponents of backroom deals when it came to Obamacare.

...and Boehner cries.

Is Paul Ryan wading into the Big Muddy?

When it came to Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, it was considered a good strategy because Ryan had developed a reputation as one of the few who could bridge the gap between the establishment and conservative wings of the Republican Party. This latest bit of news, if it bears out, could show that Ryan wasn't so much bridging a gap as he was attempting to play both sides of the fence, which brings us to an old adage that says:

You can't play both sides of the fence.

As differences between entities become more pronounced, riding the fence becomes less and less possible. There comes a point when everyone chooses a side and Ryan appears to be stonewalling questions about whether he had any role in helping Speaker John Boehner boot conservative members off of House financial committees. If he did play that role, he has chosen a side.

Via Breitbart:

On Monday, Boehner and House GOP leadership removed four conservative Republicans from influential fiscally focused committees. Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas were pulled from the House Budget Committee and Reps. David Schweikert of Arizona and Walter Jones of North Carolina were removed from the House Financial Services Committee. Huelskamp was also purged from the House Agriculture Committee.

For several days, spokespeople for Ryan – the Republican Party’s most recent vice presidential candidate who’s widely rumored to be positioning himself to run for president in 2016 – have refused to answer any questions about whether Ryan was involved and, if he was, what role he played.

Then, on Friday, Ryan spokesman William Allison would not deny Ryan’s involvement in the purge. “We are going to defer you to the Speaker’s office and the Steering Committee,” Allison told Breitbart News when asked if Ryan was involved and supported Boehner's move. 

A spokesman for Boehner didn’t return a request for comment when asked if Ryan was involved.

Couple that with an ABC News report from today, which said, in part:

The day after the election, House Speaker John Boehner, the man now at the center of the negotiations with President Obama, called Ryan, according to a Boehner aide, because the speaker wanted "to make sure he was in the fold from Day One," adding he's been a "close part of the thought process."

And an aide to Ryan, who asked that his name not be used, says the role of the Wisconsin congressman is as a "resource to the speaker, a resource to House Republicans."

"He has responsibilities as the House budget chairman, he has responsibilities to the first district of Wisconsin. He needed to be where the fight is," added the aide. Nevertheless he wants to be "deferential" to those leading the conversation -- namely Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.

So, according to a Ryan aide, Romney's running made wants to show deference to Boehner. Of course, deference is defined as:

respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another.

This is not what conservatives want in the Budget Committee chairman. Now, of course, if one was inclined to cut Ryan some slack, maybe the Congressman from Wisconsin thought he could be more effective by being deferential to Boehner than by being on the sidelines with Huelskamp, et. al. The problem for Ryan, however, is that if he had a hand in jettisoning principled conservatives in deference to Boehner, he risks becoming more like Boehner himself.

In fact, if this is all true, it means Ryan threw principled conservatives under the bus for political self-preservation.

Again, if true, Ryan is already compromised goods and cannot be trusted.

With that said, I'm going against my better judgment and posting this song from hardcore liberal whacko Bruce Springsteen is actually appropriate. It's called 'The Big Muddy'. One particular line of note is:

"I had a friend who said watch what you do. Poison snake bites you and you're poison too."

How Springsteen could write a song like this and be such an Obamautamaton is beyond me. Then again, maybe it's autobiographical, which might help explain it.

Does Petraeus come to mind when you watch this?



Conversely, this song by the Wood Brothers is about those who don't compromise their principles.

Video: Joe Biden appears mentally unstable (no, seriously)

This RNC ad highlighting Joe Biden's debate performance is not taken out of context. If you saw the debate, this is only a small sampling of his behavior. Biden appeared to be either mentally or emotionally stable, laughing and smirking throughout. On top of that, the state of both the world and our country doesn't warrant much laughing at all, especially from the vice president.

Perhaps the reason for so many gaffes might have something to do with his mental stability.

This ad from the RNC is spot-on:

Biden Video: Paul Ryan assumed office eleven years after getting elected

If Joe Biden wasn't a perpetual gaffe machine, this one might have slipped under the radar. While his comment in Wisconsin yesterday, that Paul Ryan was elected to Congress in 1988 and took office in 1999 is factually inaccurate, it might have been overlooked if not for Biden's penchant for not knowing where he is along the space / time continuum. In particular, his comment about America striving to be the world's leading auto manufacturer in the 20th century helps to contribute to this gaffe being a bit more relevant.

In 2008, Biden thought television was around during the Great Depression; last month (and two years ago) he thought we had just come out of the 19th century; and this weekend he revealed that Ryan had to wait more than a decade after being elected, to be sworn in. The term 'parallel universe' is often used in a figurative sense but when it comes to the synapses firing in Biden's mind, there may be reason to apply it to him in quite the literal sense.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:



In 2008, Biden said FDR got on television during the Great Depression:



Biden made the news last month when he suggested that the U.S. can lead the world in automobile manufacturing in the "20th Century" but he actually made a very similar gaffe in February of 2010. Here's that clip:



Biden repeated that gaffe last month:



Just keep talkin' Joe - please.

Videos: Paul Ryan's speech and Chris Matthews' Pathetic reaction

Paul Ryan's speech was full of fire, passion, and multiple instances in which he held Barack Obama for his record. He also made fun of the music on Mitt Romney's iPod (he likened it to elevator music). In short, much of what Sarah Palin brought to the convention in 2008, Ryan brought in 2012. That's the biggest reason the mainstream media socialists disapproved.

Via Real Clear Politics:



MSNBC's Chris Matthews watched that speech and thought Ryan was directing his words to racists. No, seriously...

Via NewsBusters

Newt smacks down 'lack of foreign policy experience' Argument

There seems to be a minor tete-a-tete going on between Newt Gingrich and Christian Whiton, a man who worked on the former House Speaker's presidential campaign; Whiton also worked at the State Department from 2003 - 2009. In an interview yesterday, Whiton asserted that Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan was 'unfortunate' due to Ryan's lack of foreign policy experience.

Here is the video, via MediaIte:



Note how Whiton defers to Dick Cheney's standard for selecting a Vice President. While it's true that Cheney has eight years of experience as Vice President under his belt, he has quite a few blemishes when it comes to his dealing with the real Islamic threat after 9/11, as was identified by William Murray in the days after 9/11.

Consider a Washington Post article dated February 22, 2003. It had been learned that Sami Al-Arian, who would later be convicted of charges relating to financing terrorism, was one of 160 members of a delegation from the American Muslim Council (AMC) who attended an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House on June 22, 2001.

None other than Karl Rove - the man who earned the moniker known as 'Bush's Brain' - was on hand to convey Bush's "faith-based" agenda. AMC, to include Abdurahman Alamoudi, a man who worked at the State Department under Clinton and who was convicted in 2004 of charges related to financing terrorism, was also in attendance. Keep in mind that Rove spoke at this event, attended by Alamoudi nearly one year after the AMC member stood in front of the White House and pledged support for Hamas and Hezbollah:



Cheney was scheduled to speak to the AMC at that June 22, 2001 meeting. The Washington Post article explains what happened:

The meeting was controversial within the White House even before it took place. The group that included Al-Arian was scheduled to be briefed by Vice President Cheney, but Cheney canceled. That morning, the Jerusalem Post had run a front-page article headlined, "Cheney to host pro-terrorist Muslim group."

Several pro-Israel and conservative activists had warned administration officials not to meet with the American Muslim Council contingent because the group had courted controversy for years, knowledgeable sources said.

The inference is that Cheney canceled because of the Jerusalem Post article but let's assume the two incidents were mutually exclusive. Why was Cheney scheduled to speak to the group at all??

To be fair to Whiton, he wasn't working at the State Department at the time of this fiasco involving Rove and Cheney.

This leads us to Gingrich's appearance on Face the Nation today. Note that his argument is in support of the Romney/Ryan ticket and that "it is an advantage that they're not part of the current mess". Based on the decision-making of Cheney's handlers in the anecdotal example from June of 2001 alone, Newt has a strong point.

When talk turns to the subject of the State Department in general, Gingrich advocates for 'distrust' of it.

Is that a reference to Huma Abedin and her potentially ill-gotten security clearance?

For the record, I reached out to Whiton to get his take on the Huma Abedin controversy; my inbox still contains no emails from him.

Again, via MediaIte:

Video: Newt Slammed by Iowa Voter over his Comments

It's looking more and more like the worries out there about a weak Republican primary field may be ill-advised after all. The RINO herd appears to be thinning on its own because it's running into a much more informed and passionate base that is simply not willing to buy the political doublespeak. Gingrich went after Paul Ryan's budget plan on NBC's Meet the Press this past weekend, calling it 'right wing social engineering.' He also embraces the idea of an individual mandate, the issue at the heart of conservative rejection of Obamacare.

Huckabee appears to have dropped out before his RINO bonafides got the better of him. Gingrich is being run through the proverbial constituent grinder. Look for Romney to start feeling some real heat too after this. While in Iowa, Newt was confronted by a voter who was visibly disgusted with the former Speaker's comments on Meet the Press. Fast forward to the 1:40 mark if pressed for time.



h/t The Blaze

Video: Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity

Short video where Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee explains what his new proposed budget will do and what it will prevent. Common sense numbers only the irrational can disagree with. It is no longer shocking to observe how ignorant liberals are when it comes to answering the question, 'where does money come from?' If they don't get this, there may be no hope for them. In either case, it's time for those who understand economics to actually be in charge of it.



HERE is a link to Ryan's plan. Here is an interview Ryan gave to Greta van Susteren on April 1st during which he calls Barack Obama out. Fast forward to the 4:00 mark. Via Fox News

OBAMA TO AMERICAN PEOPLE: YOU'RE STUPID

There is a short clip of Barack Obama's upcoming appearance on CBS' 60 Minutes in which he talks about the huge Republican victories in this week's elections. When afforded the opportunity to eat some humble pie, he basically apologized for not being able to communicate effectively to the American people. The arrogance of this man is beyond palpable. We're all choking on it. In his world, Americans are simply not educated enough to understand his brilliance.

Here is the relevant quote, posted by Wall Street Journal:

“Over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation, that it’s a matter of persuading people and giving them confidence and bringing them together and setting a tone and making an argument that people can understand.”

The implication should be clear. Obama is smart enough to know what's good for Americans but is not smart enough to relate to a bunch of simpletons.

POLITICO posted a short clip of the interview but it does not include the part about 'making an argument that people can understand.'

Actually, it was Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who made the argument Obama couldn't understand. Remember this complete dress down and spanking of the president during the health care debate?

VIDEO: REP. PAUL RYAN ON GREECE / ECONOMICS

While the countries all across Europe are coming face to face with an economic black hole, the Barack Obama administration seems intent on hitching America's economic future onto their wagon. Enter conservative up and comer, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) who has as good a grasp on economic principles as anyone - a reality that may catapult him into a field of future presidential candidates.

Ryan is young but his economic expertise may more than compensate for any experience concerns the former may illicit. Perhaps no one in congress may be able to more clearly enunciate the differences between capitalism and socialism which is always doomed to fail, whether viewed through a societal or economic lens.

Can you say, Ryan 2012? Yes, it's a stretch but in light of where we're headed economically, he may be the best possible candidate when the time comes.

REP. PAUL RYAN NOT SHRUGGING AT HEALTH CARE

Ayn Rand may have been an atheist but her 1957 novel, "Atlas Shrugged" has aged like a fine wine. It lays out in no uncertain terms what happens when power-hungry bureaucrats, both government and corporate, feel threatened by capitalism and innovation - they squash it. What makes the novel so powerful is that it also lays out what happens when those bureaucrats ultimately get their way.

That's why it is refreshing to see a politician in the U.S. Congress - Paul Ryan (R-WI) - giving each member of his staff a copy of the book. If he truly embraces the principles relative to the power of the individual that are in that novel, it is a strong statement indeed. It's the stuff of paradigm shifts if in the right hands. Then again, we are talking about politicians and the novel is an exhaustive 1000+ pages. Politicians deal in perception and 'Atlas Shrugged' has become a Tea Party favorite. Reading the "Tea Leaves" comes natural for politicians.

Skepticism is high when it comes to all things Washington, D.C. these days. Sorry. That said, the American Thinker has a piece that seems to indicate Ryan might just be the real deal, pointing to his performance at the health care summit last month:

At the health care summit, he was a man among boys, firing broadsides at the health care reform bill that hit their target with devastating accuracy. Obama didn't even bother to try and counter the points Ryan made. In 11 minutes, he destroyed the Democrats' talking points - and they knew it.

His own health care reform bill, The Patient's Choice Act , was buried by House Democrats who refused to even consider most of the common sense, market oriented alternatives he was promoting. In fact, the president and the Democrats pretended that the bill wasn't even offered, referring constantly to the GOP having "no new ideas" about reform when a 248 page bill was staring them in the face, just waiting for the opposition to acknowledge its existence.

For more on Ryan, he's got an op-ed in the Washington Post. He certainly talks like he and his staff have ingested the central theme in 'Atlas Shrugged':

Rather than tackle the drivers of health inflation, the legislation chases the ever-increasing premiums with huge new subsidies. Already, Washington has no idea how to pay for the unfunded promises in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- and creating this new entitlement would accelerate our path to fiscal ruin. When you strip away the double-counting, expose the hidden costs that must be funded and look at the price tag when the legislation is fully implemented, the claims of deficit reduction are as hollow as claims of cost containment.

Ryan seems to get it and as the American Thinker points out, he's a younger member of Congress who argues the conservative viewpoint on this matter better than most of its senior members.

Read Ryan's op-ed here.