Ryan is the Romney' s failed pick

by Jeffrey M. Jones

Mitt Romney's standing in the presidential election campaign has not changed materially in the immediate days after his announcement of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. 

The first four days of Gallup Daily tracking after Romney's announcement show 47% of registered voters saying they would vote for Romney and 45% for Barack Obama if the election were held today. The four days prior showed Romney at 46% and Obama at 45%.

While the initial indication is no increase in Romney's support after naming Ryan, the data suggest the possibility that Romney may get a delayed bounce, as he fared slightly better in Aug. 13-14 Gallup tracking than in Aug. 11-12 tracking.
The lack of an immediate increase for Romney is consistent with Sunday's USA Today/Gallup poll that found a generally tepid reaction to the Ryan pick, especially in comparison to past vice-presidential choices.

Like this year, Gallup also did not find any significant change in voter preferences for the 2008 election after Obama and John McCain each named his running mate. However, in the 1996-2004 campaigns, the vice presidential choice seemed to have a more noticeable impact on voters.

Gallup cannot accurately assess the effect of vice presidential announcements on voter preferences prior to 1996, given the timing of polls and other campaign events in those years. Specifically, in many earlier elections, the vice presidential choice was made during the party's nominating convention, so it is not possible to isolate any change in voter preferences due to the vice presidential choice from changes associated with the party's conventions, which usually produce a bounce for the nominee.

The American race is continued (for Obama)

Three days after, at Republican Party the Romney’s pick (Ryan) gave solutions to many questions, but it caused many problems. 

Specifically, Ryan is aggressive, communicative and he seems to know the economics.

But the old statement about the taxation of the middle class caused a negative impression. According to opinion polls, a large crowd is already negative person in this election.

The Obama's campaign is continued with some new ideas. Yesterday, the President spoke at Oskalousa. There, he pointed out the differences between Democrats and Republicans. His voters had gathered to hear him. After the speech many of them spoke about President Obama.

Thereby his staff tries to bring the focus of the election campaign the “American people”.

After the latest polls show Obama is not anxious about his re-election. He is ahead of Romney by 7 percentage points.

Some voters’ opinions for Obama:
“I think the stark difference is that the President ultimately stands for the working class and the middle class. And I know it almost gets to sound cliché—but they’ve got the data to support the claim that the Republicans are, in fact, in support of the richest and the wealthiest in America. That's who they want to aim the tax cuts toward, and they want to then pay for that on the backs of some of the middle-class, working Americans.”
—Scott, volunteer

“[President Obama] is trying to help the middle class. And having Mitt Romney trying to raise taxes on the middle class just really irritates me. I don't know how people can support that.”
—Danielle, student

"I’m voting for Obama. I wasn't old enough to vote in 2007, but I would have voted for Obama. I value everything that he supports, pretty much. So does my family."
—Taylor, student

“I'm a big Obama supporter. I believe his compassion, his empathy, his sense of where America needs to go is the right one that we need. And I think his family values and what we see from the Obama family is representative of the United States. These are real people that have come from where we are. I don’t think Mitt Romney has a clue what Americans are going through.”
—Wanda, retired

“[Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan] live in a different world that most of us don't. And they're just totally out of touch with reality and the working class people. Mitt Romney said in Des Moines at the State Fairgrounds that corporations are people, too, and that's how they feel. President Obama is trying to move this country forward. He’s created more than 4 million new jobs. I think things are on the right track.”
—Rick, firefighter

The Obama's War against Romney - Ryan (The Video)

All "weapons" technology used by the Obama team to attack the Republicans.

Within two days the Democrats built a video with Ryan's statements on economic policy. The Democrats support that "Paul Ryan is the mastermind behind the extreme GOP budget plan. It's a plan Mitt Romney endorses".

Also they wonder: "But what does that budget mean for America? The GOP budget plan hurts seniors, it hurts middle-class families, and it hurts students. All to pay for tax cuts for those at the top".

Finally, the Obama team believe: "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: back to the failed top-down policies that crashed our economy".

Watch the video:

The War Begun: Obama attacks Ryan

Barack Obama VS Paul Ryan

Barack Obama notes five facts for Paul Romney to personal website. The war will become harder and harder for two parties to win, until the elections.

After the Romney's announcment Ryan for candidate for vice-President, Ryan is the Obama's "target".

So, Obama and his collaborators claim that:

1. Paul Ryan’s top-down budget plan is a sham

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney both support trillions in budget-busting tax cuts for millionaires that will result in tax hikes on the middle class and deep cuts in education and other investments we need to grow. Ryan’s extreme budget plan, which Mitt Romney has embraced, would make deep spending cuts now to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, which would weaken the recovery and cost the economy jobs.

2. Paul Ryan’s plan would raise taxes on the middle class and cut taxes for the wealthy

Ryan’s extreme budget plan would benefit the wealthy while raising taxes on middle-class families, slowing our economic recovery and hurting seniors and the middle class.

3. Paul Ryan’s plan would gut middle-class investments

To pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest, Paul Ryan would gut investments critical to middle-class security.

4. Paul Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as we know it

Paul Ryan’s extreme budget would end Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher program which would increase seniors’ health costs by $6,350 a year. Ryan has also proposed a plan that would have privatized Social Security, subjecting seniors’ retirement security to the whims of the stock market.

5. Paul Ryan is severely conservative

Like Mitt Romney, Ryan’s severely conservative positions are out of touch with most Americans’ values. He would take us backward on women’s health and equal rights.

Obama's response to Romney's choice of Ryan

Via Huffignton Post

President Barack Obama's campaign says Mitt Romney's selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate shows a commitment to "budget-busting tax cuts" for the wealthy and "greater burdens" on the middle class and seniors.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina calls Ryan is the "architect of the radical Republican House budget" proposal and says the plan "would end Medicare as we know it."

The Obama campaign said Saturday the Republican ticket would return the nation to "reckless Bush economic policies that exploded our deficit and crashed our economy."

Democrats are expected to seize upon Ryan's authorship of a House-backed budget plan that would curb overall entitlement spending and changes Medicare into a voucher-like system.

The president is traveling to Chicago on Saturday but had no public events planned.

Paul Ryan's view on Health Care

House Republicans have taken the first steps to control Washington’s reckless spending spree by rolling back the President’s fiscally irresponsible health care law.  Businesses, policy experts, and government actuaries have confirmed what the country already knew: this law spends trillions of dollars that we don’t have, raises taxes on workers, businesses and families, and puts the federal government squarely in the middle of health-care decisions. 

Budgetary smoke and mirrors were used to claim this plan would reduce the deficit. The law relies on 10 years of tax increases and 10 years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of new spending.  The bill raids more than $700 billion from Medicare to fuel a new $1.7 trillion open ended entitlement and ignores the $298 billion needed to avert cuts to Medicare physicians.  Even the implementation costs are hidden behind budgetary gimmicks and Washington-style accounting rules.

In addition to its impact on the deficit, the health care law is damaging to job creation and economic growth. Its dizzying maze of mandates and thousands of new regulations threaten to cripple businesses both large and small. The bill also hurts workers by encouraging employers to drop coverage and dump employees into a government-controlled exchange rather than pay the increased rates associated with new mandates in the bill.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, 21 tax increases remain in the law, a dozen of which target Americans earning less than $200,000 per year for singles and $250,000 per year for married couples. With the national unemployment rate hovering at over 8%, keeping a job-destroying, spend-and-tax policy on the books would be irresponsible and would further diminish the prospects of a robust economic recovery. 

I raised these concerns with the President at the 2009 Blair House Summit and again when Congress took up the bill.  Since then, the Administration’s own Chief Actuary, along with a host of other independent studies, have raised many of the same concerns.

But as the House stands ready to undo this damage, some are crying foul claiming that repeal will in fact raise the deficit.  Only in Washington can repealing a massive new government-spending program be seen as adding to our fiscal problems. To be clear, the same budgetary gimmicks that were used to enact the health care law last year are still there. Nothing has changed.

All of this belies the point that our nation’s health care system is fundamentally broken. We spend more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, yet our health outcomes are worse. Republicans and Democrats both agree that the status quo in health care is unacceptable.  Congress must work diligently to improve the quality of care, lower costs, and slow the spiraling growth of programs already on the books. These are not new ideas, and I have been advocating for comprehensive patient-centered health care reform since before the health care debate began in earnest. 

We cannot afford to tinker around the edges of this fundamentally flawed law. Full repeal is a critical step towards true health care reform. 

Supreme Court Decision

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance imposes a tax on the American people. Despite the disappointing decision on the law’s constitutionality, there is no question that the law remains terrible policy.

I remain committed to advancing reforms that realign incentives so that individuals and their doctors – not government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats – are the nucleus of our health care system. This requires reforms to equalize the tax treatment of health insurance, invite true choice and competition, and ensure critical programs like Medicare and Medicaid can deliver on their promise in the 21st century.

Path to Prosperity

Our government has a spending problem—a problem so large that it is driving up our debt, hurting our nation’s ability to create jobs, and threatening our future. In the past, Washington has not been truthful about the magnitude of these problems facing our country, but we can no longer afford to put off an honest, fact-based conversation on how to solve them. Unless we act soon, government spending on health and retirement programs will crowd out spending on all other government programs, including national security, and, eventually, will consume every cent of every federal tax dollar. 

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health care law has created a tremendous fiscal burden, and a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

The House-passed budget repeals the President’s disastrous new health care law and protects the health and retirement security of those who need it. With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly Americans to ensure that a serious illness would not exhaust their life savings or the assets and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. 

Medicare’s structural imbalance threatens beneficiaries’ access to quality, affordable care. A flaw in the structure of the program is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, threatening to bankrupt the system – and ultimately the nation. Unless Congress fixes what’s broken in Medicare, without breaking what’s working, the program will end up causing exactly what it was created to avoid – millions of American seniors without adequate health security and a younger working generation saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained.

It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America’s health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America’s social contract with retired workers.

Recognizing the problems facing Medicare, the House Budget Proposal:

Strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government bureaucrats and empowering patients with control over their care.

Repeals the new health care law’s unaccountable board of bureaucrats empowered to cut Medicare in ways that would jeopardize seniors’ access to care.

Saves Medicare for current and future generations, with no disruptions for those in and near retirement.

For younger workers, when they become eligible, Medicare will provide a premium-support payment and a list of guaranteed coverage options – including a traditional fee-for-service option – from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.

Program growth would be determined by a competitive-bidding process – with choice and competition forcing providers to reduce costs and improve quality for seniors.

Premium support, competitive bidding, and more assistance for those with lower incomes or greater health care needs will ensure guaranteed affordability for all seniors. 

Allowing the federal government to break its promises to current seniors and to future generations is unacceptable. The reforms outlined in the budget passed by the House protect and preserve Medicare for those in and near retirement, while saving and strengthening this critical program so that future generations can count on it to be there when they retire.

Reforming Medicaid in the Path to Prosperity

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending on Medicaid, a program which provides medical care for the poor, will grow from $276 billion in 2013 to $622 billion by 2022.  This translates into an annual growth rate of 9 percent.  Should this problem continue to be ignored, Medicaid will continue to overwhelm state and federal budgets and fail the vulnerable people who need it most.

Specifically, the Path to Prosperity:

Secures the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations.

Improves the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care. Medicaid recipients, like all Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions for them.

Saves $810 billion over ten years, contributing to the long-term stabilization of the federal government’s fiscal path and encouraging fiscal responsibility at the state level.

All Americans will pay more because of this broken Medicaid system – and not just in higher taxes. Because Medicaid’s reimbursement rates have been ratcheted down to below-market levels, the care that Medicaid patients receive is often substandard. Offering states more flexibility for their Medicaid beneficiaries will remove the stigma Medicaid recipients face, and allow them to take advantage of a range of options available. Several of the nation’s governors have made innovative proposals to fix Medicaid. This budget encourages further efforts in this direction.

Paul Rayn's view on taxes

At a time when Wisconsinites are facing economic uncertainty, a high unemployment rate and a rise in the costs of living, the last thing our country needs are tax increases. The President’s budget imposes a heavy cost for its commitment to intrusive government – diminishing economic opportunity by imposing the largest tax hike in American history. This budget imposes $1.9 trillion in new taxes on families and small businesses, while adding new complexities to an already broken tax code.  At the same time, the President’s budget would increase the debt held by the public by $9 trillion over ten years and would never set the budget on a path to balance. Instead of chasing higher spending with ever-higher taxes, Congress needs to make our tax code fair, competitive and simple. Unfortunately, our current tax system fails on these three elements.

Looming Tax Increases

In Wisconsin, approximately 90 percent of businesses file their federal income taxes as individuals, not as corporations.  These businesses that file their federal income taxes as individuals employ more than 50 percent of the Wisconsin workforce.  Imposing tax hikes on employers and making the tax code even more complicated will only hurt job creation and our economic recovery.  Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened under new laws enacted by President Obama.

Most of the tax increases enacted since January 2009 are included in the new health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590). This law will enlarge government, increase Federal spending, deficits and debt. It initiates a government takeover of the health care sector (one-sixth of the U.S. economy); increases total spending by $2.6 trillion; raises taxes by more than a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years (the largest tax increase in history) and cuts more than a half-trillion dollars from Medicare to finance a new entitlement. For these reasons, I voted against this legislation. The largest single tax hike in the health care law ($210 billion) results from the 0.9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on wages for employers and small businesses, and a new 3.8 percent Medicare surtax on net investment income. The threshold amounts for these surtaxes are not indexed for inflation so these taxes that are aimed at “wealthy” individuals today, will reach increasing numbers of middle-income taxpayers over time, just as the Alternative Minimum Tax has.

The new health care law also provides $10 billion to expand the IRS, which will be in charge of verifying that every American taxpayer has obtained health insurance defined under this new law. Taxpayers who fail to prove that they have the health insurance required under the health care law, face a new tax up to up to $2,250 or 2 percent of the taxpayer’s income (whichever is greater). The new law, however, includes an exemption for illegal aliens and incarcerated individuals. Incarcerated individuals are exempt because they receive taxpayer-funded health care in prison. Though illegal aliens cannot receive a tax credit or Medicaid coverage under the health care law, they may receive emergency room care, but do so without paying the same penalty that uninsured Americans must pay. According to the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, nearly half of the taxes collected from this law, would be paid by households earning less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Line ($66,150 for a family of four).

The President’s budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013

At a time when strong leadership is needed in the White House, President Obama's proposed budget, in the words of The Washington Post, "falls short." Failing to heed the warnings of economists and the concerns of our fellow Americans, the President's budget accelerates our country down the path to bankruptcy. In the three years since President Obama was sworn into office, the national debt has increased 45 percent, from $10.6 trillion to more than $15 trillion. The President's FY2013 budget contains massive tax increases, does nothing to pay down our crippling national debt, and continues the trend of out of control government spending.  By his own projections, this budget would propel the national debt to $26 trillion by 2022. Along with adding $11 trillion to the national debt, his budget would impose a $1.9 trillion tax hike, creating more uncertainty for American families and businesses.  The House recently had the opportunity to vote on President Obama's budget proposal for FY2013, and unanimously rejected the President's proposal, by a vote of 0 – 414, a clear indication that Republicans and Democrats alike did not believe the President put forth a credible plan to address America's challenges.

The “Buffett Rule”

The President and his party continue to insist that raising taxes will somehow boost economic growth. They insist that the best way to grow the economy is to take more money from hardworking Americans and use it to fund the President’s out of control spending.  The problem is that this tax increase, known as the “Buffett Rule,” would not just raise taxes on “wealthy Americans,” but would raise taxes on small business owners and investments during the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression.  Democrats fail to acknowledge that we are facing a deficit and debt crisis because we spend too much, not because we tax too little.  And while some continue to champion the Buffett Rule as a serious solution to reducing the deficit, the truth is that this tax increase, over a ten year period, would only reduce our nation’s projected deficit by less than one percent (0.7%). 

To put into perspective just how ineffective the Buffett Rule would be, consider how much revenue this new tax would generate compared to how much our federal government spends in one year.  Over a ten year period, the Buffett Rule would generate an average of $5 billion in revenue per year, and the FY2013 federal budget is projected to spend $3.803 trillion. That means that, in FY2013, these tax increases would pay for only 0.131 of federal spending.  Of the 8,760 hours contained in one year, the Buffett Rule could only pay for just over 11 hours of federal spending.  Instead of policies aimed at growing government and raising taxes on families and businesses, we must advance policies that boost private-sector job growth.  Policymakers must put aside these gimmicks and work together to meet our generation's defining challenge of restoring America's promise and ensuring greater opportunities for generations to come.

Path to Prosperity

House Republicans have pledged to lead where the President has failed.  The budget advanced by the House of Representatives on March 29, 2012 helps spur job creation, stops spending money the government does not have, and lifts the crushing burden of debt.  The Path to Prosperity cuts more than $5 trillion in spending from the President's budget over the next 10 years, putting the budget on the path to balance and the economy on the path to prosperity.  Specifically, the budget:

Restores Economic Freedom – The Path to Prosperity fosters a better environment for private-sector job creation by lifting the debt-fueled uncertainty and advancing pro-growth tax reforms.
Changes Washington’s Culture of Spending – The budget stops Washington from spending money it does not have on government programs that do not work.  It locks in spending cuts with enforceable spending controls.
Strengthens Health and Retirement Security – The budget puts an end to empty promises from Washington, offering instead real security through real reforms.  The framework established in this budget ensures no disruptions to existing health and retirement benefit programs for those beneficiaries who have organized their retirements around them, while at the same time building stronger programs that future beneficiaries can count on when they retire.
Provides for the Common Defense – With American men and women in uniform currently engaged with a fierce enemy and dealing with emerging threats around the world, this budget takes several steps to ensure that national security remains the Federal  government’s top priority, including the rejection of proposals to make thoughtless, across-the-board cuts in funding for national defense.
Lifts the Crushing Burden of Debt – The budget tackles the existential threat posed by rapidly growing government and debt, applying the nation’s timeless principles to this generation’s greatest challenge.  It ensures that the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. 
Making the Tax Code Fair, Competitive and Simple

Fair Tax Code
The tax code is full of deductions, credits and loopholes that let politically-connected companies avoid paying taxes.  Every dollar that businesses spend lobbying for a better tax deal is a dollar they’re not spending on making a better product.  And, since every dollar hidden in a loophole doesn’t get taxed – politicians make up for this lost revenue by increasing overall tax rates.  So we need to close these loopholes.  The U.S. corporate income tax, incorporating federal, state, and local taxes, equals just over 39 percent, the highest rate in the industrialized world.  (The U.S. has overtaken Japan, which recently lowered its corporate rate.)  On top of sending almost 40 cents out of every dollar earned to the government, businesses pay additional taxes including investment taxes and payroll taxes. 
Competitive Tax Code
The budget we passed in the House of Representatives calls for closing the loopholes and lowering the tax rates.  The President’s bipartisan Fiscal Commission proposed something similar.  Its plan would reduce the corporate tax rate to as low as 26 percent, and to lower the top individual rate that many small businesses pay to as low as 23 percent.  If we lower tax rates, does that mean the wealthy pay less in taxes?  It does not if we close loopholes.  The people who use most of the loopholes are those in the top tax brackets.  The money parked in these tax loopholes is taxed at zero.  If you take away the tax loophole and lower everybody’s tax rates, that money is taxed.  It is taxed at a fair, more simple, more competitive tax rate so they can compete in this global economy.  The President, however, would allow the top marginal income tax rate to rise to nearly 45 percent in 2013.  This would be a direct hit on Wisconsin small businesses and jobs because 90 percent of businesses in Wisconsin pay the individual income tax, not the corporate income tax.  These small businesses employ more than half of all private sector workers.
Simple Tax Code
Individuals and businesses spend over six billion hours and $160 billion, every year, trying to understand and comply with the tax code.  Congress should simplify the tax code, not just by closing loopholes, but also decreasing the number of different tax brackets.  Fewer brackets, along with lower individual rates, will make the tax code less complicated, and let more people keep more of the money they earn.  America has had tough recessions before and we know that the secret to growing jobs and prosperity in America are through the ingenuity and the hard work of our businesses – of our small businesses, of our large businesses, of job creators.  Our tax system should not reward people for coming to Washington and getting special favors.  We want a tax system that rewards Americans for hard work, risk taking, entrepreneurship, investment and innovation.  These ideas made America great in the past.  We need these kinds of ideas going forward if we want to grow our economy in the future and compete in the 21st century global economy.

Paul Rayan's view on War on Terrorism

As your Representative, keeping America safe remains my first priority. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am committed to ensuring that the federal government provides our military with the necessary resources to accomplish the missions that they have set to protect our nation from those who wish to do us harm.

Fiscal Year 2013 Defense Appropriations

H.R.4310, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, which passed the House with my support on May 18, 2012 by a vote of 299-120, authorized funding for national defense at $554 billion for the base budget and $88.5 billion in overseas contingency operations including Afghanistan.  The bill provides our war fighters and their families with the care and support they need, deserve, and have earned; while ensuring that proposed drawdown plans do not cut to the heart of the Army and Marine Corps.  It also provides our military with the resources, and authorities it needs to win the war in Afghanistan and continue to prosecute the wider War on Terror.  The NDAA is currently awaiting action in the Senate.

Path to Prosperity

The Path to Prosperity budget passed the House on March 29, 2012. The resolution reaffirms a commitment to the men and women in uniform and ensures that national security remains the government’s top priority. The budget rejects proposals to make across-the-board cuts in funding for national defense, and provides $554 billion for national defense spending in FY2013, an amount consistent with America’s military goals and strategies.

The defense budget is currently slated to be cut by $55 billion, or 10 percent, in January of 2013 through the sequester mechanism enacted as part of the Budget control Act of 2011. This reduction would be in addition to the $487 billion in cuts over ten years proposed in President Obama’s budget. The Path to Prosperity acknowledges that defense spending needs to be executed with effectiveness and accountability; however, government should take care to ensure that spending is prioritized according to the nation’s needs, rather than treated indiscriminately with regard to cuts. Further, the House-passed budget recognizes the sacrifices that veterans and their families have made to ensure the continued security of our nation, and provides funding to afford the best care possible that veterans have bravely earned.

Iraq

On October 21, 2011, President Obama announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and trainers from Iraq to be completed in 2011.  Since January 1, 2012, the United States has maintained normalized relations with Iraq, and will continue to assist in the training of Iraqi forces, encouraging regional security, peace and respect for Iraqi sovereignty. I am encouraged by the progress that has been made in Iraq, and we must remain vigilant to ensure that the hard-won gains in Iraq do not slip away now that America’s combat participation has ended.

Afghanistan

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States made a commitment to defeat those responsible for the horrific attack.  As part of the broader war on terror, the U.S. military has effectively engaged our enemies in Afghanistan and employed counter-insurgency tactics to combat current threats to our national security. This military strategy necessitates enough troops on the ground to clear and secure areas, move onto subsequent locations while maintaining a level of operable safety. Commanders requested 33,000 soldiers, totaling deployment to 100,000, and the President initially complied with this request. However, on June 22, 2011, the President announced a withdrawal of the same number of troops timed to conclude just before the 2012 elections.

The withdrawal has the potential to pose security threats to soldiers continuing shorthanded counter-insurgency operations, as well as to compromise the larger mission in Afghanistan. Further, the Afghan citizens currently working with our troops to quell violence may view the withdrawal as a signal that our forces are no longer committed to the mission, which will serve to debilitate the long-term diplomatic, development and reconstruction efforts in the area.

I believe that the engagement in Afghanistan is necessary, and demands careful considerations for the safety of both our Armed Forces and citizens.  Our own security at home depends on denying Al Qaeda and other terrorists a safe haven to operate from abroad such as Afghanistan.  I continue to support providing our soldiers with the best possible equipment so they are able to complete their mission safely, effectively and on time so they can return to their families as soon as possible.

Israel

America has no better friend in the Middle East than the nation of Israel. Not only is Israel the region’s only fully functioning democracy, with a government based on popular consent and the rule of law, but it is also a valuable ally against Islamic extremism and terrorism. Our shared democratic values and national interests are supported by maintaining a close friendship with Israel. Americans also have a strong interest in Israel achieving a lasting peace with its neighbors – including the Palestinians. 

Reasonable people – including those who live in the Middle East – differ about how the conflict between Israel and Palestine can be resolved. However, I believe at least one thing is clear: we cannot advocate for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that jeopardizes Israel’s safety or legitimizes terrorism. Hamas, which is one of the two major Palestinian political factions, is an Islamist terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence, and calls Osama Bin Laden a “martyr.” 

While I do not have a role in the diplomatic discussions over the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America should not pressure Israel to agree to a peace deal that is unlikely to result in peace and security. Real peace will require Palestinians to recognize that Israel has a right to exist, even as it will require two states for the two peoples. Introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on May 13, 2011, H. Res. 268 reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct negotiations. I co-sponsored this legislation, and it passed the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407-13.  I was also a cosponsor of H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, also introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, which passed the House on May 9, 2012 by a vote of 411-2.  H.R. 4133 states that it is United States policy to reaffirm the commitment to Israel’s security as a state, provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself, expand military and civilian cooperation, assist in a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize its right to exist.

Supporting Our Troops

We must not forget that we are a nation at war. The brave troops who serve our country worldwide have made and continue to make tremendous sacrifices on behalf of this nation. I am grateful for their service, and am dedicated to ensuring that they are provided with the necessary resources to achieve their missions safely and effectively and to return to their families as quickly as possible. Congress must also work to ensure that the families of these courageous individuals are thanked and cared for while their loved ones are away. As Congress continues to consider further legislation with regard to these issues, please rest assured that I will not lose sight of the effects that our national policy has on the lives of our troops and their families and the security of our nation.

Who is Paul Ryan?

Paul Davis Ryan (born January 29, 1970) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999, and the Republican Party nominee for Vice-President in the 2012 election. Ryan is often cited for his views on economic policy and especially his proposed changes to Medicare. Having been considered a possible vice presidential running mate for the 2012 presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, the Romney campaign confirmed on August 10, 2012 that Ryan had been selected.
Born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, Ryan earned a B.A. degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio. In the mid to late 1990s, he worked as an aide to United States Senator Bob Kasten, as legislative director for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, and as a speechwriter for former U.S. Representative and 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp of New York. In 1998, Ryan won election to the United States House of Representatives, succeeding the two-term incumbent, fellow Republican Mark Neumann. He is now in his seventh term.
Ryan currently chairs the House Budget Committee, where he has played a prominent role in drafting and promoting the Republican Party's long-term budget proposals. As an alternative to the 2012 budget proposal of President Barack Obama, Ryan introduced a plan, The Path to Prosperity in April 2011 which included controversial changes to Medicare. He then helped introduce The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal in March 2012, in response to Obama's 2013 budget. Ryan is one of the three co-founders of the Young Guns Program, an electoral recruitment and campaign effort by House Republicans.

Ryan was born and raised in the Wisconsin town of Janesville, the youngest child of Elizabeth A. "Betty" (née Hutter) and Paul Murray Ryan, a lawyer. He is of Irish and German ancestry, and is a fifth-generation Wisconsin native. Growing up, he and his family often went on hiking and skiing trips in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. As a boy, Ryan attended Camp Manito-wish YMCA, a wilderness canoe-tripping camp located in Boulder Junction, Wisconsin. Ryan was 16 years old when he found his father in bed, dead from a heart attack at age 55. Ryan's grandfather and great-grandfather had also died from heart attacks, at ages 57 and 59 respectively.
Graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville in 1988, Ryan was voted prom king and "Biggest Brown-Noser" by his fellow classmates. He went on to attend Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, returning to Camp Manito-wish YMCA, to work as a staff member and counselor during his college summer vacations. During his junior year at Miami University, Ryan worked as an intern opening mail for the foreign affairs advisor assigned to Senator Bob Kasten of Wisconsin.Ryan graduated from Miami University with a BA in economics and political science in 1992. He also studied at the Washington Semester program at American University and was a member of the Delta Tau Delta social fraternity. Following his studies, Ryan briefly returned to Wisconsin and worked as a marketing consultant for an earth-moving company run by his relatives.
Early political career

Concerned that her son "was destined to become a ski bum", Betty Ryan reportedly nudged him to accept a congressional position as a staff economist attached to Kasten's office. In his early years working on Capitol Hill in D.C., Ryan supplemented his income by working as a waiter and fitness trainer and at other various side jobs.
After Kasten was defeated by Democrat Russ Feingold in 1992, Ryan became a speechwriter and a volunteer economic analyst with Empower America, an advocacy group formed by Jack Kemp, former education secretary Bill Bennett, the late diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber of Minnesota. Empower America and Citizens for a Sound Economy merged in 2004 and the resulting organization was named FreedomWorks.
Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Kemp, the Republican vice presidential candidate in the 1996 United States presidential election, and later worked as legislative director for US Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. In 1998, he ran for Congress.
At an Atlas Society meeting celebrating Ayn Rand's life in 2005, Ryan said that "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand", and "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff." In response to criticism from Catholic leaders, in 2012 Ryan distanced himself from Rand's Objectivist philosophy, telling National Review, "I reject her philosophy. It's an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview", and noting that his views were more aligned with those of the Roman Catholic philosopher and saint, Thomas Aquinas, than Ayn Rand.

U.S. House of Representatives
Political positions of Paul Ryan
Ryan has sided with a majority of his party in 93% of House votes he has participated in.

Following his first election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, he had a Walk-in Delivery Van converted into a “Mobile Constituent Service Center” that allowed him and his staff to meet with his constituents at rural locations across Wisconsin's 1st congressional district.
Key votes & events
In 2002, Ryan voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution, authorizing President George W. Bush to use military force in Iraq. In 2003, Ryan voted in favor of the Medicare Part D prescription drug expansion. In 2004 and 2005, after the reelection of Bush, Ryan pushed the Bush administration to propose the privatization of Social Security; Ryan's proposal was ultimately not fully supported by the Administration and it failed. After the next election, he was chosen as the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.
In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Wall Street bailout that precipitated the Tea Party movement, and the bailout of GM and Chrysler. In 2010, The Daily Telegraph ranked Ryan the ninth most influential American conservative. In 2011, Ryan was selected to deliver the Republican response to the State of the Union address. In 2012, Ryan accused the nation's top military leaders of using "smoke and mirrors" to remain under budget limits passed by Congress. Ryan later said that he misspoke on the issue and called General Martin Dempsey to apologize for his comments.


Roadmap for America's Future

Paul Ryan speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. on February 10, 2011.
On May 21, 2008, Ryan introduced H.R. 6110, titled "Roadmap for America's Future Act of 2008." This proposed legislation outlined changes to entitlement spending, notably major alterations in Medicare. The Roadmap found only eight sponsors and did not move past committee.
On April 1, 2009, Ryan introduced his alternative to the 2010 United States federal budget. This alternative budget would have eliminated the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, lowered the top tax rate to 25%, introduced an 8.5% value-added consumption tax, and imposed a five-year spending freeze on all discretionary spending. It would also have replaced Medicare. Instead, it proposed that starting in 2021, the federal government would no longer pay for Medicare benefits for persons born after 1975, and would instead pay a fixed sum in the form of a voucher for the Medicare beneficiary to buy private insurance with. The plan attracted criticism since the voucher payments would not be set to increase as medical costs increase, leaving beneficiaries partially uninsured. Ryan's proposed budget would also have allowed taxpayers to opt out of the federal income taxation system with itemized deductions, and instead pay a flat 10 percent of adjusted gross income up to $100,000 and 25 percent on any remaining income. Ryan's proposed budget was heavily criticized by opponents for the lack of concrete numbers. It was ultimately rejected in the house by a vote of 293-137, with 38 Republicans in opposition.
In late January 2010, Ryan released a new version of his Roadmap The modified plan would: give across the board tax cuts by reducing income tax rates; eliminate income taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; and abolish the corporate income tax, estate tax, and alternative minimum tax. The plan would privatize a portion of Social Security, eliminate the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance, and privatize Medicare.
On April 15, 2011, the House passed the Ryan Plan for 2012 by a vote of 235-193. Four Republicans joined all House Democrats in voting against it.[49] A month later, the bill died in the Senate by a vote of 57-40, with five Republicans and most Democrats in opposition.
Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the contention that Ryan's plan would reduce the deficit, alleging that it only considered proposed spending cuts and failed to take into account tax changes. According to Krugman, Ryan's plan "would raise taxes for 95 percent of the population" and produce a $4 trillion revenue loss over ten years from tax cuts for the rich. Krugman went on to label the proposed spending cuts a "sham" because they depended on making a severe cut in domestic discretionary spending without specifying the programs to be cut, and on "dismantling Medicare as we know it," which is politically unrealistic.
In response to Krugman, former American Enterprise Institute scholar Ted Gayer wrote a more positive assessment of the Ryan plan. Gayer agreed that, as written, the plan would cause a $4 trillion revenue shortfall over 10 years. Gayer concluded that "Ryan’s vision of broad-based tax reform, which essentially would shift us toward a consumption tax... makes a useful contribution to this debate." Conservative author Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in National Review, argued that the revenue loss to which Krugman refers is based on a comparison between Ryan's plan and current law, which "includes middle-class tax increases... cuts in payment to Medicare providers... [and] the expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax."
Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, said of Ryan's plan for reducing Medicare costs: "Now, with either a voucher system that puts a lot of pressure on what you can buy for health insurance or to a somewhat lesser extent the payment updates for Medicare providers or certain other kinds of things, if you can put that pressure on the research and development community, you might have a fighting chance of changing the nature of new medical technology in a way that makes lower costs like this possible and more sustainable. I would say that the Roadmap has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I’m a little less confident about that."

Ryan's second budget plan

Paul Ryan speaking with President Barack Obama during the nationally televised bipartisan meeting on health insurance reform in Washington, D.C. on February 25, 2010.
At the end of March 2012, the House of Representatives passed a newer version of Ryan's budget plan for fiscal year 2013 along partisan lines, 228 yeas to 191 nays; ten Republicans voted against bill, along with all the House Democrats. Ryan's budget would reduce all discretionary spending in the budget from 12.5% of GDP in 2011 to 3.75% of GDP in 2050. This goal has been criticized as unrealistic since it includes spending on defense, which has never fallen below 3% of GDP. Congressman Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan criticized Ryan's budget for insufficient cuts, its continuation of deficit spending through 2022 and beyond, and its exemption of military spending from reductions. His budget has also been criticized because it would not balance the budget until 2035. Marc Goldwein, the policy directory for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget stated "We may never, as a country, have a balanced budget again, And you know what? We don't have to." Ryan saw this as evidence of the severity of the deficit crisis.
The 2012 Ryan budget also received criticism from elements of the Catholic Church, specifically from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from faculty and administrators of Georgetown University. In its letter to Rep. Ryan, the group of Georgetown faculty and administrators criticized the Ryan budget as trying to "to dismantle government programs and abandon the poor to their own devices," going on to say that Catholic teaching "demands that higher levels of government provide help—"subsidium"—when communities and local governments face problems beyond their means to address such as economic crises, high unemployment, endemic poverty and hunger." The letter also criticizes Ryan for his attempts at "gutting government programs" and states that Ryan is "profoundly misreading Church teaching." A statement issued by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized the Ryan budget in similar terms. Ryan rejected the bishops' criticism that his budget plans would disproportionately cut programs that "serve poor and vulnerable people."
In May 2012, Ryan voted for H.R. 4310 which would increase spending on defense, Afghanistan and various weapon systems to the level of $642 billion - $8 billion more than previous spending levels.
Political campaigns

Electoral history of Paul Ryan
Ryan was first elected to the House in 1998, when two-term incumbent Mark Neumann retired from his seat in order to make a bid (unsuccessful) for the Senate. Ryan won the Republican primary over 29-year-old pianist Michael J. Logan of Twin Lakes and the general election against Democratic opponent Lydia Spottswood. Ryan successfully defended his seat against Democratic challenger Jeffrey C. Thomas in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. In 2002, Ryan had also faced Libertarian candidate George Meyers.


Personal life

Ryan married Janna Little, a tax attorney, in December 2000.The Ryans live in Janesville with their three children Elizabeth Anne, Charles Wilson, and Samuel Lowery.Ryan is a Roman Catholic and is a member of St. John Vianney's Church.
Ryan, a fitness enthusiast and fan of the Green Bay Packers, promotes fitness as a daily routine for young people. Ryan, whose father, grandfather and great-grandfather all died of heart attacks in their 50s, has said he is careful about what he eats, performs an intense cross-training routine known as P90X most mornings, and has made close to 40 climbs of Colorado's "Fourteeners"

Via the Wikipedia

Ryan's statement before a few days

The die is cast! Mitt Romney' s Running Mate: Paul Ryan!

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

The die is cast. Paul Ryan will be the Running Mate of Mitt Romney. The animate Republican President will announce Paul Ryan  as how Running Mate at the beginning of a four-day bus tour through states. In Norfolk on Saturday morning Romney will announce his choice.

Cnn reported that Romney and Ryan will appear together at an event in Norfolk, Virginia, at 9 a.m. ET.

Before a few days ago Romney had described, in an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd,  the characteristics of Paul Ryan:

"I certainly expect to have a person that has a strength of character. A vision for the country, that, that adds something to the political discourse about the direction of the country. I mean I happen to believe this is a defining election for America; that we're gonna be voting for what kind of America we're gonna have".

Romney wants an agreement from Obama

The situation has changed. Many polls show that  the rating for Obama, who is running for re-election in November, climbed to 47 percent versus a 45 percent for Romney. There is a big problem for Republicans. Romney expressed a view about the campaign.   In spite of the Romney’s ads are negative for Obama, Romney would like a pledge with Obama barring "personal" attack ads.
NBC's First Read has the following excerpt from Romney's interview with Chuck Todd, conducted Thursday as part of a forthcoming documentary on MSNBC, in which he said:

 “Our campaign would be-- helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon-- business or family or taxes or things of that nature."

and

“We only talk about issues. And we can talk about the differences between our positions and our opponent's position.” 

and

“Our ads haven't gone after the president personally. We haven't dredged up the old stuff that people talked about last time around. We haven't gone after the personal things.”

New Romney ad against Obama's 'war on religion'

Good news for Obama! II

This survey have some results which are very intersting about the elections.

Basen on  CNN/ORC International poll the American people consider that  it's better Congress to control by Democrats:

Control of Congress is also up for grabs in November. According to the survey, 45% say the country would be better off if Congress were controlled by Democrats, with 39% saying things would be better if the GOP ran Capitol Hill.

In parallel:

Sixty-four percent of all Americans, and 68% of independents, think Romney favors the rich over the middle class. And 63% of the public thinks Romney should release more tax returns than he has already made public, a figure which rises to 67% among independents.

Good news for Obama! I

According to a just released CNN/ORC International poll Barack Obama has passed Mitt Romney for 7 points. This is score is the best for Obama in recent weeks.

CNN said about the score:

It all adds up to a seven point advantage for President Barack Obama over the former Massachusetts governor, with 52% of registered voters questioned in the survey saying that they'd vote to re-elect the president and 45% backing Romney.

What is the difference among the men and women?

"Among independent voters, the poll indicates President Obama has a 53%-42% lead," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "The president holds a nine point advantage among women voters and a smaller six point edge among men."

There are some good news for Romney, too. As CNN notes:

The good news for Romney: Four months after he wrapped up the race for the GOP nomination, 56% of Romney voters say they strongly support him, up from 47% in May. Sixty-one percent of Obama voters say they strongly support the president.

Obama does not want money

Money for his election campaign Barack Obama looks. Hiw team will organize events to raise money next time. The close associates are constantly working for the victory, and invite those who want to help, either with money or with their work.

Jonathan Harris, executive director of the Democratic Party, said: 

"Connecticut citizens are working not just for an overwhelming victory here in the state, but through phone calls, social media and travelling to other states (... ) A lot of times, because we're a blue state, people think nothing's happening...But there are people...working every day".

Blumenthal, a Democrat who was elected in 2010, said: 

"The president is facing a tsunami of Super PAC and other undisclosed money (...) This deluge of money he faces really requires him to do the kind of grassroots fundraising through parties and events that are happening in Connecticut. The special interest money he faces is unprecedented".

How Bill Clinton Should Introduce Obama

Convention 2012: How Bill Clinton Should Introduce Obama

By KAREN HUGHES

We’re still waiting to learn who will join Mitt Romney on stage at the GOP convention as his vice presidential running mate, but we’ve got the former Presidents sorted out: George W. Bush chose not to attend the Republican National Convention, and Bill Clinton will have a starring role at the Democrats’ gathering, placing Barack Obama’s name in nomination on Wednesday night. Since President Bush won’t need my services, I thought in the spirit of bipartisan outreach, I’d draft a speech for President Clinton.

(MORE: Who Should Romney Pick as Vice President?)

“My fellow Democrats, I’m speaking to you tonight from 12 years on the other side of the bridge to the 21st century. It’s great to be here. It’s really great to be here. I’ve missed you. I’ve really missed you. I’ve missed the balloons and the pomp and the adoring crowds. I can tell you like me. You really, really like me.  [PAUSE FOR LENGTHY APPLAUSE]

“Twelve years ago we stood at the foot of that bridge, looking ahead to the 21st century, and things looked good. We were coming off the longest economic expansion in the history of our country. We’d created 22 million new jobs. Home ownership was the highest in American history, and unemployment was the lowest in 30 years. Makes the last four years look really… lame. Record deficits, unemployment over 8%, no jobs, home foreclosures, what kind of record is that? Tonight, I look back across that bridge and think, what the hell happened?

(MORE: The Myth of Partisanship)

“Back when we were building that bridge, America’s future seemed bright. I rose above partisan gridlock and found a place called triangulation, right in the political center, passing free trade, overhauling welfare to reward work, and making republicans pay for shutting down the government.

“The only thing we didn’t get was health care. I have to hand it to President Obama for getting that done. He made a royal mess of it though; Hillary’s would have been much better. Come to think of it, everything about Hillary would have been better.

“During our time at the White House, we oversaw one of the greatest surges ever of American prosperity and innovation. [HOLD FOR APPLAUSE] But enough about me.

(MORE: What History Tells Us About Obama’s Chances)

“I need to level with you about why you shouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney. He won’t release his taxes. And I just can’t stand not knowing whether the underwear he gave to charity were worth more than mine. By the way, I didn’t really mean it when I said he had a sterling business career. Got to admire the way he turned around so many failing companies, though. By the way, I know how business works. Those small business owners, it was their sweat and tears that built their businesses, not the government’s — and they shouldn’t let anyone else get away with stealing credit.

“My fellow democrats, I have one job to do tonight, and it’s a big one, but I’m ready. I’m leaner than you’ve seen me in years. After my heart attack, I quit the McDonald’s runs and spent more time on the treadmill. I’ve never been in better shape. I know I’m supposed to stand on this stage and nominate Barack Obama, but I’ve always done what’s best for my party and my country. My fellow Democrats: I’m rested, I’m ready, I’m yours.” [PUMP FISTS AS BALLOONS DROP]

MORE: Obama vs. Romney: Who Will the Economy and How?

Hughes is the Global Vice Chair of the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller and former counselor to President George W. Bush. The views expressed are solely her own.


Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/03/how-bill-clinton-should-introduce-obama/?iid=op-main-lede#ixzz22gbVd9Ub

The Romney Campaign

The negative advertisement of Timm Romney is continued. The collaborators of candidate have chosen this way, the negative campaigning against Barack Obama. Every day a negative spot is displayed and it is presented Obama as a bad President for all affairs. For every attack the collaborators use a video on youtube.com. This method has advantages and risks.
Rick Farmer, PhD, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Akron found that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads when they reinforce a preexisting belief and are relevant to the central issues of a marketing campaign. In the other side, In a study done by Gina Garramone about how negative advertising affects the political process, it was found that a consequence of negative campaigning is greater image discrimination of the candidates and greater attitude polarization.
Today the issue of the negative advertisement is economy:
Under President Obama, our economy is just not getting better. Americans are suffering. As former NH Gov John Sununu said, "It's a DISASTER." Governor Romney has a plan and the experience to build a stronger, robust middle class with more jobs and MORE TAKE-HOME PAY. And, regardless of the tiresome rhetoric coming from Obamaville, Romney is NOT going to raise taxes on the middle class. Mitt Romney is the leader we need: