PLEASANT PRAIRIE, Wisconsin -- Later today, Congressman Paul Ryan is planning on announcing an 88 page proposal on Healthcare and Social Security, and his Democratic challenger, Marge Krupp issued a key question in regards to his plan, "Why does Paul Ryan want to hurt the senior citizens of Wisconsin?" Krupp, Democratic Candidate for Wisconsin's First Congressional District, challenged Ryan's proposal was working against the financial security of those that she wants to represent, "The seniors of this district count on a monthly Social Security check as part of their income and Paul Ryan is trying to undermine that." Ryan's plan calls for a privatization of Social Security services that some say could lead to a destabilization of the program.
Also proposed in Ryan's plan is a health insurance tax credit that would allow Americans to purchase a healthcare plan of their choice. Krupp again asked why Paul Ryan would issue such a plan, "This is the same kind of proposition that the Bush Administration has been giving the American people the past eight years, why is Paul Ryan trying to punish our working families and seniors?"
Krupp also noted that Ryan receives tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from private insurance companies and is at the will of these individuals when it comes to issues of Healthcare or Social Security.
For more information:
Communications Director
Krupp For Congress
262-909-9279
info@kruppforcongress.org
You can hear Marge Krupp counter the claims of Paul Ryan and his faltered plan for America on Bob Bach's Morning Edition radio show from WUWM, Milwaukee Public Radio - 89.7, tomorrow (Thursday) morning.
14 comments:
Paul Ryan deserves much credit for daring to propose a long overdue reform of entitlements. No Presidential candidate has dared propose substantive reform since Ross Perot in 1992. Resistance to reform is hardly progressive. It is in fact a reactionary defense of a failing status quo. When these programs start to sink the hurt will not be on well to do seniors who read AARP magazine looking for good cruise deals. The victims will be those older widows dependent on Social Security for most of their subsistance. The response of this candidate to Paul Ryan is typical of a reactionary politician trying to play on fear. Once upon a time Democrats tried to help those with the greatest need.
Nice try, Rich, but everything I heard so far about the reforms in Ryan’s plan isn’t much different than what he’s been doing for the past 10 years. His 88 page report is nothing more than a election year diversion to shift focus away from his dismal party-line voting record. It's time to turn the page on Paul Ryan.
Louis - well said for an opponent of real change. The need for progress and reform did not end in 1968.
So you're saying reform can only occur if we head in the direction Ryan's been going for the past 10 years. You're asking people NOT to resist Ryan's voting record because resistance to what he has brought is a natural reactionary defense to change. You're basically saying that any change must be liberally embraced simply because it's different than what we have today, and if anyone resists that change, they must be opponents of reform. And you're saying Ryan's plan for America represents that change despite his record of evidence to the contrary.
Ryan is a GOP party line voter. This cannot be denied. He has voted with Bush anywhere from 86% to 92% of the time depending on which Web tracker you believe. Up to 81% think America is on the wrong track. Not since 1968 but for the past 8 to 10 years. Those numbers tend to increase with every Bush veto. People in the 1st CD need to start connecting the dots. It's not about the status quo or change, its' about the issues. You can transpose this as resistance to the change or reform, but I can only hope the voters know better.
What I am trying to say is that I respect Paul Ryan for putting the topics of entitlement reform and the defecit on the table. Both parties have refused to do it. Ryan is way ahead of Bush and his fellow Republicans. The Republicans got what they deserved in the 2006 elections. My role models for responsibility include Democrats like the late Paul Tsongas and former Sen. Bob Kerrey (Nebraska). They proposed similar goals as Ryan. If he still gets involved, I look for Kerrey to endorse the broad base of Ryan's proposal.
You have every right to oppose Ryan's views on the war, abortion, and probably lots of other issues. Those are honest philosophical differences. Financial integrity is different. It has been abandoned by both parties. Ryan has a long track record of voting against the House Republican leadership in these matters.
As far as these voting record measurements go, they are all loaded to make a point by the organization publishing them. One exception is the Concord Coalition which objectively measures restained support for government spending and integrity. Guess what you will find their? Paul Ryan and Russ Feingold as far apart as you could imagine on every other scale. BUT - they vote rate very high as anti big spenders. These are the type of politicians it will take to solve entitlement and defecit issues. Failure to reform will hurt the neediest in America. Sometimes I may like change because it pads my pocket and sometimes I may not like it because it protects the pocket of my grandchildren by giving me a bit less. I prefer default to the benefit of future generations. The only certainty is the everlasting need for change.
Whew! - It is so difficult being a centrist. I feel alone in the wilderness. Thanks for reading and allowing me to comment.
I am confused by the press release can someone help me?
There is no indication of death or destruction anywhere in the release. While using some fear tactcs there is no attempt by Krupp to attach her name to someone elses horror.
Is this a real press release?
Rich, juxtaposing Ryan's voting record with Bush does not put a right or left slant on it. It is what it is. Most people have a clear view of where Bush has taken us over the past eight years. Some are still in denial.
Ryan voted against strenghtening the SS lockbox and encourages LESS participation. A fifth grader can understand what that means.
The only federal spending Ryan has agreed with has been in lockstep with Bush - military and top-down corporate enterprise only, otherwise they both view it as pork or a socialist program. What he is proposing here is nothing new - at all. Every election cycle, the status quo GOP thinks they can tax cut us out of debt, in the meantime deficits grow and multiply. Ryan is a major part of that mindset. It time to pay the piper.
By being against pay-go he has pushed our debt down to future generations. On just that one front among many, you should be rallying against him with a vengeance.
Louis is spot on. Wisconsin ought to be ashamed of Ryan and Sensenbrenner. They are a drag on our state and need to go. Anyone who has so aligned himself with Bush needs to start looking for a new job. Good luck with that Ryan.
I have no particular knowledge of or opinion on Sensenbrenner. I am old enough to well understand when partisanship emnity trumps common sense and reasonable conversation. Those were the days of Joe McCarthy, which date me, but are well remembered and unfortunately seem to be ever present today. Opposition to Paul Ryan simply because of George Bush and a party label seems senseless to me. I look for practical matters which have a particular relevance. A current case for all of us is oil prices. To rant and rave about oil companies as singular villans in very much in vogue but not particularly usefull. Today Herb Kohl got his minute on camera tongue lashing executives. I view a major problem as the outsourcing of oil production overseas with the product then delivered to
America by tankers (why do outsourcers prefer that potential for pollution?) Kohl, Feingold, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all favor this outsourcing. They have voted to restrict insourcing oil production and the jobs back to America. Who favors bringing oil production and jobs back to America? Paul Ryan! Who locally could benefit? GM/UAW workers in Janesville. God forbid the UAW might recognize that. Again, it is easy to be partisan even when harming yourself. We must get past this stuff. No one side is all bad and no one side is all good.
Obviously you're politically inclined. Many people are, but the vast majority are not, and I'm not taking anything away from anyone by saying that, it's just the way it is.
My opposition to Paul Ryan is based on his votes on major issues in Congress, his extra-curricular partisanship and eco-political philosophy. Not simply because of Bush or the party label. But the shoe just happens to fit extremely well and not only do people identify with it, Ryan does as well. I haven't heard of him switching party's or running as an Indy.
Brazil supposed is the only western and industrialized country in the world that is completely energy independent (they import no arab oil) BUT isn't that the policy of an isolationist? According to Wall Street practice, Bush policies, trade agreements and globalization it is. Can America produce a gallon a gasoline for less than the world market? There are no shortages and America participates in the global markets so, what is the goal? Cheap, abundant gasoline? Is that sustainable?
If the oil in ANWR was to be pumped, delivered and refined only for the people of the U.S. at cost like they do in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia at 60 cents for a gallon of gas, what's wrong with that? Should energy be a matter of nation security and nationalized? What's the likely outcome of additional drilling here? Your insourcing perspective is interesting though, but if Congress allows drilling in ANWR or the Gulf under the phony free-market principles we now have, that oil will be sold to the highest bidder - nothing would change. We will have gained nothing more than a placebo for our oil addiction.
I think our country is in unchartered economic territory right now, and if we continue to think that our energy must remain in the hands of the free markets (my opinion is it's a phony free market) then we will be in for a long, slow death. Countries that have nationalized their oil/energy reserves are way ahead of the curve, but we call it socialism. Too bad.
No one side is all bad or good, BUT their are usually ten easy ways to do things wrong but only one or two ways to get it done.
I respect a lot of what you say. When people take time to have real discussion in a environment of mutual respect, they will find points of agreement and can then compromise - that's how Democracy works. I agree with you in regard to world oil prices. American production would enter the total mix - though the American jobs created would be nice. The current situation seems to be a function of normal supply and demand with the wild card of excessive speculation. I believe it is the speculation, which is physchological, that is out of kilter. I tend to believe that if more American oil entered the mix it would have a small effect on supply and demand but a significant effect on the physchological speculation. There is an oil price bubble that needs to burst just like the tech bubble in the late 90's and the housing bubble of the last decade. Environmentalist are well intended but I do not believe they give adequate consideration to the economy and the well being of workers. The economy needs to be robust to help pay for the technical advancements we all feel are necessary. Reasonable people could come together on this. History tells me to beware of government control. The nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union was government managed - not by free enterprise. The ecological problems in China result from a political system that does not allow the freedom of discussion we enjoy. Nationalization of resources is a blueprint for bigger problems than we have now. There is a role for government to help but not dominate. It is government that is currently standing in the way of American oil development and therefore shares part of the blame. I don't care if they are Republicans or Democrats.
I ran across this the other day and it pretty much sums up how I feel about politicians and politics.
"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices -- 545 human beings out of the 300 million -- are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No norm al human being would have the gall of a Speaker who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetency and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation,' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses -- provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote ALL of them out of office and clean up their mess!
We selected them therefore we are responsible.
I believe there are huge differences between Republicans and Democrats despite the singular problem they both have participated in.
But there is a lot of truth posted by anonymous. Now if we can get at least 120 million to feel that way, we could have a revolution. But until then..........
Post a Comment