Mitt Romney Chooses A Running Mate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-13/mitt-romney-chooses-running-mate
Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is already generating momentum among conservatives. But the choice also highlights divisions between the parties over spending, taxes and entitlements. The Wisconsin congressman is the architect of a plan to remake Medicare and cut trillions in federal spending. And despite the boost he brings to the GOP presidential ticket, Romney is already distancing himself from Ryan’s controversial budget proposal. And President Barack Obama is now calling Ryan the ideological leader of the Republican party. Diane and her guests discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the 2012 Republican presidential ticket.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of a new book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Byron York
chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.
Michael Gerson
columnist for The Washington Post and author of "Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace American's Ideals."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
jlynwood wrote:"Under the constitution, budgetary items cannot originate in the Senate of the U. S. Government. They must originate in the House of Representatives'
By law the senate is to produce an annual budget, they have not in over three years.
"Under the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, the Senate must move a budget out of the Budget Committee by April 1 of every year and adopt a budget resolution on the floor by April 15."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/26/senates-scofflaw-democrats/
“Under the law, the budget law, the Senate Budget Committee is supposed to by April 1 produce a budget, as well. And then the House and Senate are supposed to have acted by April 15th on a concurrent budget resolution
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/budget-senate/2012/03/22/id/433468
One thing that hasn't come up... Paul Ryan would be the President of the Senate... if the Senate should deadlock on a vote, he would be the deciding vote... and that deadlock could come when the budget debate happen in that body (it's probably a given that the Republicans would still be able to pass the Ryan budget in the House)...
In listening to the comments about Medicare reform, it strikes me that Republican spokesmen have claimed seemingly contradictory assertions. On the one hand they want to give Paul Ryan for addressing Medicare issues and claim that President Obama has not addressed Medicare. Then, they complain that the Affordable Care Act makes significant changes to Medicare. If they truly believe Medicare needs to be reformed, why don't the changes effected by the Affordable Care Act qualify as an example of making Medicare more sustainable in the future?
This liberal catholic KNOWS that the healthcare/catholic hospital issue is bunk.
It is time for change. It is time for Republicans to move to the center. They need to learn how to govern, not block. The Republicans need to work at progress. Presently, they want Obama to fail. Even if Obama has good policies-and he does-they are blocked. The Republicans are unprincipled in their argument.
When the dust settles, nothing will have changed.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"Medicare Ended ....Medicaid Ended....Social Security Ended....The V.A Ended..Student Loans Ended.....Just for starters.
Extremist doctrine right out of the John Birch Society manifesto.. No Social Justice under their vision of the Constitution. TV ads are running as I type promoting the CHURCHES rights,and eliminating women`s rights.
T-Party controlled school boards are already re-installing segregated schools.For profit charter schools are using books Bob Jones created,for religious indoctrination,once called the Hitler Youth. The T-Party is demanding the end of Title 9...The T-Party demands that voters be barred from voting...
Remember,their motto...YOUR Government is not the solution.YOUR government is the PROBLEM. Nowhere in the T-Party rhetoric does their government have any solutions.
John F.Kennedy had to promise not to allow the Pope any control of our government.Mitt Romney creates a 4th branch of government. The Department of Religion."
I simply quoted you because your comment is exactly on point.
Paul Ryan on the Republican ticket only solidifies existing partisanship. R-money is only speaking to his existing fans, getting some of those who were less enthusiastic, namely evangelicals more motivated. I can't think of ANY new or additional voters this choice gains. Lots of talk - Who is Ryan? What does he stand for? How does this chance the debate? No change in numbers, at all, I predict.
To Chris Cilliza's point as to whether you believe Obama has inherited a bad situation and done his best to make it better or not, I think he has both, but the Repuglican party in congress has done everything they can to block his every effort and done nothing themselves to make anything better. Most of their time has been spent on social issues that don't put anyone to work, or cut taxes on people who don't need it. If I did my job the way they do theirs, I would have been fired long ago. I'm an independent voterand I have voted for many Repuglicans in my 62 years, but after Bush and this bunch of Teabagger nitwits, I will never again vote for one. If I don't agree with the Democrat, I simply won't vote for them, but no vote for Repuglicans.
I guess the liberal distortion wasn't coming through strong enough so they called in the master of deception EJ Dione. Yeah EJ, it's the republicans only that scream when bases and defense contracting are cut back.
Panel, what's in your coffee?
Ryan's "encyclopedic" knowledge of the budget has little to do with his budget being, as independent analysis shows, unworkable.
In addition, his selection continues to underscore the bifurcation of the nation. Romney did not demonstrate that he will try to unite this nation.
Democrats should be ecstatic. The poor should be unnerved
I couldn't agree more about the lack of balance on this panel. That has been happening to this show and all shows on NPR out of DC. If Republicans win the next election...NPR will have promoted their own demise. If NPR thinks they will survive the next bout of gov't cuts under a Republican administration, they are as delusional as the right wing shills they continue to put on their airway, in one of the most unbalanced and obvious manner.
When was the last time you heard three left-leaning pundits on the show at one time with no rightwing think tank, op-ed writer or conservative leaning tv show personality on? Interesting that they had to get EJ in on the show as an afterthought to address this at the last minute.
The discussion on women's issues by three men is also insulting. The attack on women's issues (over 50% of the US population) ARE economic issues...Cilizza. Let's get that straight first before poo-pooing these issues as not being central to "what most people are focused on in this election". So tired of his rightwing spin and telling what he thinks is important to the country's women. So sad.
I couldn't agree more about the lack of balance on this panel. That has been happening to this show and all shows on NPR out of DC. If Republicans win the next election...NPR will have promoted their own demise. If NPR thinks they will survive the next bout of gov't cuts under a Republican administration, they are as delusional as the right wing shills they continue to put on their airway, in one of the most unbalanced and obvious manner.
When was the last time you heard three left-leaning pundits on the show at one time with no rightwing think tank, op-ed writer or conservative leaning tv show personality on? Interesting that they had to get EJ in on the show as an afterthought to address this at the last minute.
The discussion on women's issues by three men is also insulting. The attack on women's issues (over 50% of the US population) ARE economic issues...Cilizza. Let's get that straight first before poo-pooing these issues as not being central to "what most people are focused on in this election". So tired of his rightwing spin and telling what he thinks is important to the country's women. So sad.
How can Ryan be considered a fiscal conservative when INITIALLY his budget plans would balance the budget by 2060 AD?
It would be good if we could just focus in on what the problem is and fix that. All the political rhetoric is shouting into the ether.
The problem is that doctors, hospitals and health insurers have caused health care to become way too expensive. Despite the economists' fear of deflation we need prices to come down in this country to be globally competitive.
Outrageous! All your commentators on Romney/Ryan women's issues were men, except one caller, and not only did Diane brush off her comment, but allowed E. J. Dionne to rationalize the sexism in the Catholic church!
Would Rehm soft-pedal a candidate who belonged to a church that reserved all authority (and an extra sacrament) to white people? And yet, she glosses over the caller's remark that both Ryan and Romney are faithful members of churches that reserve all authority, all decision-making to one gender. Sexism is as despicable as racism.
dougmac wrote: "The problem is that doctors, hospitals and health insurers have caused health care to become way too expensive. Despite the economists' fear of deflation we need prices to come down in this country to be globally competitive"
Not true, it is the expansion of new drugs a treatments that have come on line over the years that are most responsible for higher costs.
dlj wrote: "How can Ryan be considered a fiscal conservative when INITIALLY his budget plans would balance the budget by 2060 AD?"
Truly disappointing although I think there is a bit of exaggeration on your part. But know Obama's budget NEVER gets deficits under control, just the opposite.
Not exactly a balanced panel. This show might be replayed on Fox news
I don't need these three gentlemen to sell me on Romney and Ryan, they can do that for themselves. Instead, I'd rather some serious commentary on what Romney and Ryan are proposing. For example, instead of talking about medicare reform as something that has to happen or it will be broke in ten to forty years (a lifetime in which the economy and political dynamic will change significantly), talk about the biggest problem that currently faces us, jobs. Both Ryan and Romney believe that we create jobs by giving more money to the top. Setting aside the incredibly apparent failure of that policy, we have great evidence that American manufacturers are creating jobs, in China. We also know that the money they are making is being off shored so they don't have to pay taxes. How is giving them more money going to change this? Unless you build a structure that forces them to invest in this country, it isn't going to happen. The structure that business wants is one where they can pay and treat American workers like Chinese workers are treated. Is a ticket that is taking us to that place really what we want in the U.S.?
partisan politics wrote:
"also look at the link for medicare spending provided by nohoplophobe. Sorry but you did NOT pay in what you are most likely to receive."
You are most likely to receive more than you paid in for any investment, that's why people invest. To get more out than they put in.
Fine. Another reason for health care being too expensive. Let's focus on fixing that not on political hyperbole.
I was surprised how thoughtlessly the question about not visiting with the Catholic nus was brushed aside. I can't understand why any person hoping to be our next President would be so discourteous to humble women of faith.
Explain to all those seniors why it's essential to cut spending on Medicare, but we have enough extra in the budget to increase defense spending and cut taxes.
lyleoross wrote:
"Unless you build a structure that forces them to invest in this country, it isn't going to happen. "
THAT is the fundamental problem ... "force". History proves you can't FORCE businesses to do anything. They will find a way to circumvent "force". Between the carrot and the stick, you choose the stick. I choose the carrot. Attempts to "force" businesses drives them overseas. Why not use the carrot of low taxes (or NO taxes) to lure them back? Compared to other places in the world business taxes in this country are punative. Why do you think businesses leave? Even manufacturing businesses would have more of a chance to compete with higher labor costs in this country if taxes were reduced or eliminated.
reviewingthesit... wrote:
"Explain to all those seniors why it's essential to cut spending on Medicare ...".
I can do that.
First, I'm going to bet that 99% of you have never actually READ the Ryan plan. Instead, you have culled little talking points from MSM.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
From the document, "When younger workers become eligible for Medicare a decade or more from today ..."
Implying that the Ryan plan will negatively affect today's retirees is false, misleading, and dishonest. Nothing changes for them.
I listened to two female callers during this morning's show who shared concerns about both Mr. Romney's and Mr. Ryan's stands on women's issues. Both callers made specific reference to Mr. Ryan's refusal to meet with the Nuns on the Bus who were protesting his budget proposals. In their responses to the callers, none of your commentators made any reference to the Nuns. In fact, one of the commentators instead made reference to Mr. Ryan's conversations with Catholic Bishops! In case your commentators haven't noticed, these Bishops are male and have been at odds with the compassionate work being done by the courageous nuns who your callers mentioned.
In his response to the second caller, one of your commentators went on to state that women, like men, were most concerned in this election about the economy and joblessness, and that these concerns about "women's" issues only represented a sliver of the population. As a 66-year-old woman who has seen tremendous changes in opportunities for women in my lifetime, I do not consider these to be issues only relevant to a "sliver" of the population. Perhaps, your commentators haven't noticed that a woman's ability to participate in family planning is directly related to her family's economic security and to her career opportunities. Perhaps, they have not noticed that access to affordable health care is important to the economic security of women and their families. Perhaps they have not noticed that many of us also care deeply about the availability of social safety nets, especially for those families less fortunate than our own.
Disappointedly, your morning commentators, with the exception of D.J. Dionne, espoused attitudes that highlight the very real concerns that I have, and I believe many women share, about the Romney-Ryan ticket.
BTW - The notion proposed in the interview that Ryan is well informed, especially about budget issues, is directly commented on by Paul Krugman who points out that none of what Ryan says makes sense. Ryan proposes solutions without telling how to accomplish those ends. He hasn't crunched numbers because if he had, he would know what he is proposing won't work. How is it that your guests don't understand this and think Ryan is smart? Me thinks they are biased.
In reply to ecgberht
Actually, Diane Rehm is the MSM and she let these three gentlemen come on and present what Ryan is proposing as rational. The MSM has done a very poor job of dissecting what Ryan has proposed. In depth analysis of it shows clearly that it won't work, that it doesn't get you to where Ryan says it will and that it is at best silly, not bad, but so bad that it is silly. To your point, I think it is well understood that Ryan is counting on those under 55 being disconnected enough from their retirement that they will not play enough attention to this poorly constructed bill. That is your definition of dishonesty.
I am angry that you had this program and again, women were not represented.
I'm hearing this pattern much too often with your show.
How can you talk about abortion, planned parenthood, priests, healthcare, etc without a women's point of view???
New show equation: 1 man, 1 women - 2 men, 2 women - especially on politics and the economy