THE Obama campaign is presenting Mitt Romney to America as a right-wing extremist. Count me among the unconvinced. Far more convincing is the argument that the man has no fixed principles but a "fix-it" principle, the consultant's faith in his own brainpower. He clearly is brainy, and a good fix-it man. I'd also like to see that he can take a risk for something he believes.
Cue Scott Galupo, who's hoping Mr Romney will name Paul Ryan his running mate:
If Obama wins a contest in which the Ryan budget is a centerpiece of the GOP campaign, then perhaps enough Republicans will be ripe for a Bowles-Simpson- or Gang of Six-style compromise next year. Perhaps, under this scenario, enough Republicans will concede that the country can't afford more tax cuts.
Conversely, if a Romney-Ryan ticket unseats Obama, then the Romney administration might have a clear electoral mandate. And with such a mandate, the GOP could begin to honestly reshape the public's expectations about the level of government services it will receive in the future.
I'd like to see a fair and clear argument on how America should pay its bills, too. Perhaps a Ryan budget at the heart of the campaign would expose Barack Obama's fiscal timidness. Perhaps it would also expose the GOP's wishful thinking that the bills can be paid without any new tax revenue.
But another reason I'd like to see Mr Romney pick Mr Ryan is what it would say about Mr Romney himself. By now, he knows he is thought to be a windsock. To pick a bold but polarising fiscal plan, in the human form of its author Mr Ryan, would be to say, "I don't care. Here is a stark, clear proposal. Where's Mr Obama's?"
By contrast, picking a vice-presidential nominee on boring, box-ticking grounds would remind me why I'm wary that Mr Romney has no core. Marco Rubio: Latino, swing state, shores up the right flank. Check! Check! Check! Rob Portman: sensible, swing-state, pucka GOP credentials. Check! Check! Check! Bob McDonnell: swing state, executive experience, looks the part. Check! Check! Check!
Paul Ryan will probably not win Mr Romney Wisconsin. At 42, he's never won a statewide election nor held an executive office. But he is the GOP's one-man brain-trust on the most critical issue facing the country. His ideas have started a furious debate. He would not be a safe pick, but he would be a courageous one, and in choosing him, Mr Romney would show America a side of himself he has not revealed so far.
(Photo credit: Getty Images)
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Big government is a problem, not a solution. You heard it from the great and beloved former president in Ronald Reagan, and now from me.
There is no better team other than team-Romney/Ryan in slashing the ballooning size of the Federal Government and its outstanding public debt that has exceeded 15 trillions and counting not to mention the looming threat from ObamaCare and the expiration of the Bush tax cut on January 1, 2013 if not extended. Would the Romney/Ryan team alone be able to do the job if the Republicans do not have the control of the House and the Senate? I would say the job could be very difficult if not impossible.
Romney is known for his past success in running businesses particularly those on the verge of bankruptcy. On the other hand, Ryan is the sitting House Budget Committee chairman who not only is savvy in the numbers and knows the federal budget items inside and out, but also has his own budget proposal to rein in the out of control federal spending. Yes, it is not perfect but it is far better than the one proposed by team-Obama which will bankrupt America.
On the foreign affair side, the Romney/Ryan team will project a strong America in national defense to restore our old glory and those of our allies. The world is in a mess now because of a weak and wimpy America led by Obama and Hilary Clinton. Haven't you seen America is on the decline fast since the day Obama took over apologizing to everybody under the Sun except the Americans? Haven't you seen Hilary being the laughing stock of the world?
On the economic front, Romney/Ryan will unleash our economic power by keeping the taxes low, removing the over-burdening rules and regulations on businesses and encouraging relentless domestic oil/gas exploration and production in addition to building new nuclear power facilities while continuing the pursuit of renewable energy sources which technology is there yet to mass produce (note: solar/wind/other renewable energy can only produce up to 10-15% of our annual consumption by 2025 according to the Rand Report). The declaration of such action alone would cut the gas price substantially from the now over $4 gas, which would in turn put tons of money in the pockets of the consumers boosting their spending, therefore our economic growth not to mention the millions and millions of jobs that follow therefore solving the biggest economic problem facing this Nation in "Unemployment" currently standing at 8.2%.
On the commitment to repeal ObamaCare, I am not sure of the Romney/Ryan team. To win the election, they must be able to assure the American voters that they are committed to do that while agreeing to find a more realistic solution with pilot programs to test them out before doing it on the national level with emphasize State Right and Individual Right.
If Romney were to choose others like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio, Ryan should then be chosen as his budget director to resolve the budget deficit and health care issues once and for all.
Romney never ran any businesses he just invested in them, loaded them with debt and took home the profits. That he saved businesses from bankruptcy is a falsehood, they were likely to go out of business after he and his Bain cronies came to town. Obama is not anti-wealth, but he is for the wealthy paying their fair share. Which parts of government should be cut, all of it, or just the parts you don't like. Gas was over $4 a galllon just before the bubble burst due to demand and now its back upp there again because of global demand...isn't that a sign of a healthy economy?
didn't these guys go down the "courageous" path with Sarah Palin last time? Granted Palin and Ryan are very different, the latter being arguably more competent if not still pretty crazy. Whether Romney makes a cynical or courageous move makes no difference. All of them have the same, cut spending across the board, government's bad mantra - we get it. The question is, does it have it's "drink the koolaid-worthy aura" from the 2010 Tea Part "revolution." - probably not.
When compared to the clueless Obama, Palin and Ryan are far better.
P.S. What's wrong with siding with the Tea Party Revolution? They are far better than the destructive Occupiers.
The tea party is a bunch of old white people who ought to know better. They've the same me first baby boomers that have sucked the tit of the government for years and now they cry like babies because times have changed and they are now longer in charge.
"P.S. What's wrong with siding with the Tea Party Revolution? They are far better than the destructive Occupiers."
Aside from the fact that the Tea Party hangs its collective hat on consistently failed economic and social policies? That the movement routinely puts forth glaringly false information about the Constitution? That they are so ignorant of the history they claim to be expert on that they actually named themselves after a popular revolt sparked by a tax CUT? Is it seriously a challenge to find fault with people who openly advocate substituting the political thoughts of 200 years ago for contemporary ones as a viable way of solving current issues? The entire premise of the Tea Party is inane nostalgia.
As for Occupy being so destructive... it's somewhat hard to swallow the idea that they should be blamed for the budget overrun on pepper spray used on peaceful, seated protesters. OWS had no measurable effect on the crime rate in NYC, despite the fact they were being arrested left and right for largely invented infractions. Oakland saw some real action, but not until well after police had started cracking skulls and shooting bean bags. Nothing that Occupiers have done comes anywhere near the level of violence seen during, say, the WTO and NAFTA protests of the late nineties, though the police response has been overwhelmingly more severe.
Ultimately, Occupy's biggest act of "destruction" was taken during their first November 5th, prior to which the official line on them was that they were stupid, lazy kids too busy smoking pot to be worthy of notice, and after which they became Al Qaeda 2.0. Move Your Money resulted in literally millions of dollars in deposits being taken out of major banking institutions and redeposited into smaller local institutions; that was an act of war for the TBTF firms, and suddenly Occupy was a dangerous revolt aimed at undermining the US economy carried out by dangerous, violent people. Occupy was just a bunch of hippies until November, then they became terrorists.
Obama would like us to believe that being a rich person is a bad thing and worth being guilty about and that somehow it makes Romney less of a serious candidate.
Well, let me do some straight shooting for us all here with a few questions?
1) Since when did earning money and capitalist success become a bad thing in America?
2) Since when did we start promoting mediocrity and 'if you can't do something useful, just hate the rich' philosophy
3) I don't know much about Romney but he seems to have been the boss of one of the most successful consulting firms and a PE firm - the sort of companies top MBAs die to work for in every country. and the type of brands that shows the rest of the world why America is the boss in business.
Don't get me wrong, I cheered for Obama when he took office the last time. However somehow he has been to busy telling us why our kids are second best and why rich should be penalized and why success should be taxed more and why capitalism and American business leadership is not to be trusted. I see a fundamental flaw in this -
To me
Business success equals Economic success
Economic success equals global power
Global power is what keep us successful (and safe).
so whats the deal here with the bashing the rich?
Regards
A poor who doesn't hate the rich but sees hope in others' success
Let me do some straight shooting back, mister Straw-Man burner:
1) What was the top rate under Eisenhower?
2) What was the top rate under Reagan?
3) What is the top rate today?
4) What is the proposed top rate given by those haters?
What use is political discourse with a group of people who equate the fact that "America's tax revenues as a % of GDP is at its lowest since the 50s" to actually mean "If you can't do something useful, just hate the rich?"
So what's the deal here with thinking people are bashing the rich or acting in hate?
What kind of straw man snake oil are you peddling?
Yours is the worst kind of straw man snake oil peddling?
When was the last time you were hired by a POOR MAN? Or worst, you have never even worked a day in your life.
Try answering your own questions before I go any further.
You are most brilliant and a realist. Unfortunately, the parasitic society in America continues to grow leaps and bounds.
I work for Google. Thanks. I'm one of the 4%.
As for the rest of my questions, they're all answered here (except for #4): http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
Again, I submit to you, where does "hate the rich" come into any thoughtful dialog about the appropriate levels of revenue and spending in our society?
You show your hate by assuming my hate, mister hatemongermonger.
You and your ilk are the parasites because you don't want to pay your fair share. You think being an American gives you the right to ignore your responsibility to all of society. You're just like "Whitewash" Romney, it's all about you. The poor man wants a job, the rich man should find a way to provide jobs, not ways to concentrate wealth in offshore accounts where it does not do society any good.
What advice would John McCain give about making "not a safe pick, but a courageous one" when choosing a running mate to appeal to GOP hardcore?
A truly inspired choice would be Joe Lieberman. Conservatives will have little objection since he'll be understood as a foreign-policy pick. Centrist Democrats dissatisfied with Obama will find it easier to vote for a bipartisan ticket.
You mean the soreloserman? Give me a break!
That case is called losing.
Yumpin Pi-yiminey...
Can anyone here count? 15 trillion and rising daily?
And we're discussing whether bailing an ocean with a tea cup or a teaspoon is the right way to go while Benny is drilling more water wells as fast as he can?
Balanced budget by 2065? Move some decimal points around and everything will be fine.
The only real question will be who will preside over the end of the Dollar and a global financial collapse and why it won't really matter much anyway.
The global pain will be beyond politics when the resource wars start.
There is a way to fix that. Just cancel the debt. The borrowed money was used to fund things that we as a nation agreed on. It should have been funded through taxes but wealthy people didn't want to pay taxes. Instead people with means wanted to "lend" it to the US government instead. Well that clearly isn't working so we might as well start over. The United States being the largest economy in the world will have no trouble getting credit after the default and should demand cheap credit or higher taxes from those with accumulated wealth but who are too risk-adverse for investment. Instead, they are just parasites on society collecting interest in T-bills. Remember, in the world of Adam Smith, those who collect interest are the landowner--i.e. old money who are no longer contributing toward advancing society.
If the USA 'just defaults' it would shatter the credibility of the worldwide market and lead to disaster. You think people are 'sitting on their money now', wait till they make a run on the banks. And imagine the international response, and I'm not just talking economic, as other nation lenders are told 'tough'.
BTW: Your idea of 'parasites' is offensive and unrealistic. The parasites are those that suck on the teet of society, having NEVER contributed anything. As for the very wealthy, their money funds other businesses, often those deemed too 'high risk' by banks... These businesses create the vast majority of jobs. This notion of a fat trillionaire who hordes his money, and swims in a pool of gold coins, withholding them from the economy and imposing hardships is unconvincing. At very least, their money is in the bank, and the bank uses this money for its own investments, in other businesses --- and so the economy churns.
Well. My post is not entirely in jest. You can see that individual investors don't have much to say or do when Iceland and Greece defaults. It is only so tortured because the wealthy didn't want them to happen. You are right there will be a response if we did that but that response was set up under this ridiculous system we created. The emphasis of our system should be that we will pay as we go by making the taxes much higher--credibility should be hung there.
As for parasite, I mean the word literally. I don't have problems with people who fund things that are high risk--T bill is not considered one of them. Real risk takers deserve some credit. However, sitting on a pile of money or land or stocks in a blue-chip company made by Dad or Grandpa and collecting interest is parasitism. You don't really think Smith came to this conclusion for no reason. These guys are no different from the welfare abusers who get a check just for being citizens of the USA--it is just their entitlements came in the form of Grandpa instead of Uncle Sam. This "at the very least" is the least convincing--a lot of "their money" wasn't ever their money except for Mr. Bush deciding that the US government ought to go into debt to give more of it to them.
Are you sure only the rich didn't want to overpay any taxes?
Federal income tax, State/local income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise tax, gas tax and disguised taxes as assessments, fees and the like are killing not only the rich but also the working class. Lowering taxes put more money into the pockets of the consumers whose spending make up 70% of our economy. It has been proven in the '80s, '90s and the Bush era.
The problem is not revenue but over-spending. Get it?
You are of course incorrect because in modern society we pay taxes in return for something. In our case, we pay a lot less tax than other OECD countries--we get less in return. They get health care for everyone, we don't. They don't become bankrupt from getting sick, we do. They have free university education, we don't.
Our problem is that we decided that we wanted to pay even less taxes while enjoying those things which are already subpar by world standards. So we borrowed money to pump up the economy during the Reagan years (read David Stockman's book), we started two wars during the Bush era without findings money to pay for them. We also gave even more money back to the wealthy people. So in a way, I partially agree with you. We spent a lot of money on two wars and giving welfare to wealthy people--in that sense the problem is not revenue but over-spending.
The Republican party never ceases to amaze me. Romney/Ryan, God help us!
Ryan’s plan is pure garbage. Has states no where the deductions are to broaden the base. Its a smoke screen to give Medicare the boot, burden the elderly, poor and middle class and boost the top 1%.
Remember, the conservative goal is to take over government provided services like SS and Medicare so they can make a buck on it. How dare the government get in the way of corporate greed !!
Romney himself is soul less and will say anything. Ryan is a bland, not that articulate tool of corporate America. He has no economic or financial education and is wacky as the rest of what is left of the Republican party.
You are dumb as a doornail. Anyone is better than this community organizer in Obama who is wrecking the U.S. of A. to no end. Only parasites would support this hate-America socialist.
You are the real parasite, you and your so called policies would turn America into a developing country faster than I can blink.
Truthteller3, more like charlatan.
If Paul Ryan is romney's running mate.. Canada needs to seriously think about buying more than 75-jets, how about 1000 for our security to stop this lunatic
I can see that you are shaking in your boots. Well, calm down! the Southern Big Brother has been your protector for God knows how long and we will continue to take care of you so long as you keep your mouth shut.
I never thought it would get to this, but these days I find myself increasingly worried about the intellectual underpinnings of some of the things I read in this journal.
Mr Ryan is a "one-man brain trust"? Surely that's a stretch. Or is it that our correspondent is simply impressed with Mr Ryan by comparison, after extended exposure to the likes of Messrs Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum?
He's also impressed that Mr Ryan's "ideas" have "started a furious debate", yet seemingly unconcerned that Mr Ryan's fiscal ideas represent little more than recycled, run-of-the-mill, Republican thinking that has already been discredited by the facts.
An idea can at the same time be stark, clear and demonstrably wrong. For example: a plan to increase taxes on the poor and reduce them on the rich, in light of all of the data available on the outcomes of US tax policies going back to Reagan's time, is clearly wrong-headed. Theory predicts and history has shown that implementing such a plan produces no overall beneficial effect. A "furious debate" on such matters is more like a distraction, yet our correspondent presents it as almost an achievement of high merit. True, a debate on tax matters may seem more substantial than one on, say, Mr Santorum's religious principles relative to women's rights, but in this case the substance isn't there.
Which brings one to the final point, which is the assertion that Mr Ryan would be a courageous pick, one that would display yet another side of the supremely multi-faceted Mr Romney. And again I ask, what would be the value in this? A man who has many, many, many sides shows yet another. Hooray.
Yes I agree 'te's' quality has sunk. Imagine taking Paul Ryan seriously.
It's one of the several shallow arts apprg in 'te' nowadays.
Wake up 'te'. Serious readers r already marginalising u bec u seem to have become a financial interest m'piece.
What a comedown
It's best to read the Economist for its international coverage, science and technology, obituaries, etc. They are reasonably centrist and often show more compassion than you would expect from a coterie of economists. But beware of articles about US elections. In 2000 and 2004 they endorsed George W. Bush. That should tell you all you need to know.
Excellent point.
Not true; in 2004 The Economist endorsed Kerry. In fact, since 1980 they have been consistent in never endorsing a sitting president:
http://www.economist.com/node/12499760
You're right. So they did. And here's the title of the article where the endorsement appeared: "The Incompetent or the Incoherent?". Synapses are funny things, especially as they "mature". Add to that the terror of four more Bush years, this ambiguous title, other statements in the article such as the Economist's insistence that "...Invading Iraq was not a mistake...", the absence of any contrition from the Economist for their original Bush endorsement, and perhaps it's forgivable I was left feeling that it wouldn't have bothered the Economist much if George had been granted another shot at glory. Ah yes, and thanks so much, Economist, for that original Reagan endorsement, and your subsequent neutral position in '84 which effectively amounted to an endorsement of Reagan anyway.
So after so many years of reading the Economist, it seems to me what's actually going on here is that our older brothers across the pond are inclined, by instinct, to make sure that the quality of our leadership fits with what they think we deserve. It's nothing to get mad about. It's not a conscious decision on their part. They just can't help themselves - and it's aggravated by the fact they're still annoyed about losing the colonies to such bumpkins. Do you have an older brother? Then you know what I'm talking about. They love you just fine and are otherwise thoughtful and generous, but there exists forever the need for dominance. And we younger ones eventually learn just to go along with it - to smile benignly at the occasional caustic put-down, or the chair pulled out from under you. It's simply part of the family tapestry, and we are one big happy family. Look at all we have in common - damn near everything except cricket and the fact you insist on putting the steering wheel in front of the passenger seat.
In general the Economist throws softballs at Republican and hard balls at Democrats. Since 2000 the Republicans have become such a lousy party even the Economist has taken a few swings at them. You are correct, it is difficult for them to lean left fiscally. Socially the Economist is quite progressive.
"One Man Brain Trust."
Good lord I'm sick of this nonsense! How does proposing to reduce the deficit with giant tax cuts and unspecified spending cuts make you a brain trust?
The Ryan plan is not a "stark, clear proposal." It is pure sophistry.
What astounds me is how on Earth did we get in this hot water with so many really well educated people at the helm? I am a novice observer of politics, becoming concerned as I saw our country flailing in the 90s when as a graduate student about to get my Ph. D. numberous offers were made to me to borrow money to buy a house!!! I was broke, did not have a job, had no promise of one, and each of these realty people knew it.
That was in the Clinton years when you did not have to plan to pay oback student loans, evidently. You simply can't say that was 43's fault. The progressives are adamant thst 43 is to blame for everything. Am I the only one who notices this?
And here we complain about a good man. Mr. Ryan. What is your plan? After all this forum is THE ECONOMIST ... Any economists out there to offer alternatives? Please proceed to do so. I would love to hear some positive input... PLEASE (and I am not an econmist or in any field similar to it!)
"Mitt Romney...a right-wing extremist."
Of course he isn't a "right-wing extremist." I would never vote for an extremist, right or left, and I voted for Governor Romney once and would have again.
That is because he was more "liberal" in liberal Massachusetts, and because I wanted him to balance the 80% Democratic legislature [and vice versa]. What he really believes, after his umpteenth flip flop is anybody's guess, so I won't vote for him as president.
On further thought, I think Romney should be assigned William Shatner as VP candidate. Two peas in a pod.
Obama can have the ghost of DeForest Kelley assigned to him. A classic rivalry.
It's a pity that the VP selection is tied to the Presidency. The VP actually has duties and leads in the Senate. The country would be better off looking at that role separately from the administration they are contemplating hiring.
The ghost of Aaron Burr concurs.
I actually do too, and I tend to believe that Mr. Burr has been the victim of a great deal of slander by political opponents both during his life and after his death. But that is neither here nor there... the real point is that the last time we allowed that it caused such a monumental cock up that our forebears simply banished the notion forever.
Personally, I want some form of proportional representation for the House, for that body to elect the Senate, and for the Senate to elect its own president. The general public tends to be unwilling or incapable (or both) of tracking much more than who the president is and what party they want to support on the national level... it seems wasteful and irrelevant to continue the direct election process for legislature, and perhaps the abstraction would allow greater time for the local and state elections which generally have vastly more impact on our daily lives and few people even try to participate in.
How is Paul Ryan an intellectual? He has a B.A. from an OK college in econ/poly sci, apparently without honors or other academic distinction. No graduate school. No published papers. In his first budget proposal, the numbers in the spreadsheet were massaged after they were publicly criticized for being silly. In his second budget proposal, there is no serious attempt at doing the hard work -- making the budget cuts.
Might as well call W an intellectual while we're at it.
Now Romney, you could make more of a case there ...
Because in America, if you come from the right social echelons, a C student has no limits on where they can go.. or take the country.
It's the land'o opportunity, man. I mean, hyuk, hyuk.
Which sort of drives home my point made elsewhere, if average schmucks are 'wonks' then ditch the baroque political finery and just pick a budget/tax jury from a random pool of regular people.
I like the idea. Ryan is the only game in town on the issue of fixing America's budget. As he states in his plan, the Senate has not even proposed a budget for three years and the President's budget makes no pretense of ever controling the problem.
False attacks aside, the Ryan plan increases spending but does so at a sustainable rate which allows us to grow out of our problem in the most painless fashion possible. We can ignore it but it will eventually lead to painful European style austerity.
Even if they lost, it might focus the Democrats on providing a plan of their own. This is the issue that needs focus and serious, level headed debate. It is the one area where our neighbors to the North and our friends in Europe seem to have the ability to depoliticize the issue and we don't. A shame.
The first rule of picking a veep is the same as the first rule of medicine: "do no harm". You don't win by being courageous and uncoventional with your veep choice, you can only lose.
A veep has no upside value that he or she adds to a campaign other than by appealing to a particular state or demographic, and even that impact is not as big as most people think. You might get a few extra votes from women or latinos, or swing a single pivotal state in your column, so in a razor-close election it may matter to pick a Rubio, for example, but the veep pick does not create a sudden sea-change in the electorate's overall attitude.
"At 42, he's never won a statewide election nor held an executive office. But he is the GOP's one-man brain-trust on the most critical issue facing the country." The male version of Sarah Palin with some brains, but lacking the critical experience to run a troubled America for sure if "The Mittster" bites the dust! He does however want to continue to destroy the middle class of America and that very much appeals to Mitt Romney. Birds of a feather and all that nonsense.
And Joe Biden is ready to take the reins if Obama "bites the dust"? The only thing Biden is qualified to do is be a politician or work behind a bar. A little perspective please.
Please! Joe Biden is single-handedly responsible for keeping some gun-toting, right-wing voter from going after the president, which would make him president. That may have been in McCain's mind when he chose Palin, but it backfired.
Wow, never looked at it that way...
Ha ha. Good one. I'll add human shield to the list next time. At least we agree he's incompetent.
That would depend on your definition of incompetent. As a warm body to take the reins if something were to happen to the president, he is as competent as many in the past and more so than some. As President of the Senate he is as competent as many and much better than some.
As a long serving senator, he was popular enough with his constituents to be reelected often [which can not be said of Rick Santorum]. Does this indicate a smidgen of competence? Is an elected official who pleases the voters incompetent? That is a complicated question [for some].
Paul Ryan would be a great choice. Even if you disagree with him, he is at least smart and trying to help the country and he is not a religious freak.
The problem is Romney himself. He is a disgrace to fiscal conservatism. He has no principles and is entirely ego driven.
He is a religious freak. He justifies his savaging of the social safety net with his unique version of Catholic Theology.
With the partial exception of 1976, can anyone actually remember an American presidential election in which the economy was the dominating issue?
1980 - Reagan vs. Carter
"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago."
Regards
1992: "It's the economy, stupid."
I am afraid you're asking ultimately an ageist question. It favors us dinosaurs who have been around for a while.
--edit mania--
Rommey better hope that is not the question as we are undeniablly better off than we were four years ago. His arguement is don't you think you should be better off than you are now?
So the folk history has it, but don't forget that lurking in background was the Iranian hostage crisis.
Khomeini wanted to depose a sitting US President, Reagan wanted the job, and he was more than willing to trade some arms for those nice hostages.