Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan has backed Romney for President, saying on Fox News' Fox and Friends that he "is the best person to be President." Ryan went on to say Romney had "the best chance to beating Barack Obama."
Ryan joins a growing list of high profile Republicans to officially endorse the Republican frontrunner, a list that now includes Tea Party darling Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and former President George H.W. Bush.
More from GlobalPost: George H.W. Bush to formally endorse Mitt Romney
as the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan is considered one of the most influential party members. his highly controversial budget plan passed in the House yesterday, mostly along party lines, 228-191, according to Reuters. It's unlikely to survive the Senate. the budget is consistent with Ryan's doctrine of fiscal conservatism.
"Here’s the other point," Ryan said on Fox and Friends. "I spent a good deal of time with Mitt Romney and his staff recently going through our country’s fiscal situation, talking about what it will take to get the country back on track. I am convinced Mitt Romney has the skills, the tenacity, the principles, the courage and the integrity to do what it takes to get America back on track."
Ryan's endorsement comes at time of increased infighting within the Republican Party and conservative establishment.
"I think we’re entering a phase where it [the Republican Primary] could become counterproductive if it drags on much longer," Ryan said on Fox. "That’s why I think we as conservatives need to coalesce around Mitt Romney and focus on the big task at hand, which is defeating Barak Obama in the fall."
According to the National Journal, there has been speculation that Ryan could fill the VP spot on Romney's ticket, but Ryan insists that it is only talk.
Paul Ryan may not have intended it, but his 2013 budget is the strongest argument I’ve seen for why any serious fiscal plan must include new revenues. It’s far more convincing than partisan Democratic complaints.
Ryan says he wants to balance the budget only by cutting spending. But he proved with hard, relatively specific numbers (on the spending side, at least) that he can’t get there from here. And if you take the second page from the Republican hymnal and add huge tax cuts to the mix, you may find yourself headed off in just the wrong fiscal direction.
Ryan’s fiscal math work only works with rapid, historic changes in government—something Congress doesn’t do well and the public struggles to accept (health reform anyone?). It would force Republicans to make one career-killing vote after another. Tea-partiers might rejoice, but there is stuff in this budget that is political death for senators and any House members running in swing districts.
Let’s look at a few:
Medicare. Ryan’s budget includes a version of the premium support plan he designed with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). But while a system where seniors get subsidies to buy health insurance on the private market might make economic sense, it is wildly unpopular. some surveys show 70 percent of those asked favor the current system.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Ryan would dramatically cut federal spending for new enrollees over time. It figures that by 2050 the federal share of Medicare costs would be 42 percent lower under the Ryan plan than under CBO’s best guess of the future path of Medicare spending. In that year, CBO expects the feds would spend $19,100 in 2011 dollars on a typical 67-year-old. But it would spend only $11,100 under the Ryan plan. that suggests seniors would pay a lot more even if medical care becomes more efficient.
Medicaid: Compared to 2011, Ryan would cut other federal health spending (for Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, and subsidies under the 2010 health law) in half from 2011 levels by 2050 (measured as a share of Gross Domestic Product). Compared to CBO’s best guess of the path of spending, that’s a 75 percent cut.
Everything else: Ryan would reduce spending for the rest of the federal government from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent by 2050. CBO estimates spending for these programs has never been lower than 8 percent at any time since World War II. Defense spending is 4.6 percent of GDP today and CBO notes it has never fallen below 3 percent during that period.
This implies Ryan and the GOP would either have to support unprecedented cuts in the Pentagon budget or leave almost no money for everything else the federal government does—highways, air traffic control, national parks, food safety, farm subsidies, and the like. Tough to imagine.
And for all of that, it still would take Ryan two decades to balance the budget.
WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) — Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., wasn’t questioning military officers’ honesty when he doubted they gave Congress “true advice” on the defense budget, a spokesman said.
The House Budget Committee chairman “believes the integrity of our generals and admirals is unimpeachable,” Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney said. “They serve our country with distinction and unparalleled honor.”
His comments Thursday came hours after Ryan told a Washington budget-policy forum, sponsored by the National Journal magazine, that senior U.S. military commanders didn’t really want the $614 billion budget request they presented to Congress.
“We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice,” Ryan told the forum. “We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget.
“I think there’s a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the Pentagon’s budget.”
The Pentagon’s new U.S. defense strategy calls for a shift in the reach of the Navy and Air Force to the Pacific, but Ryan said its budget “doesn’t do that. so I think the strategy doesn’t match the budget because I think what is going on here is this is a budget-driven strategy not a strategy-driven budget.”
Pentagon press secretary George Little said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “expects honest, straightforward input from our military leadership and he believes that is precisely what they do on a regular basis, time and time again.”
Defense officials testifying before Congress must solemnly swear to give their best military advice.
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the top Democrat and second-most-senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, called on Ryan to apologize for suggesting U.S. generals were dishonest in endorsing the Pentagon budget.
“And if he won’t, [House] Speaker [John] Boehner [R-Ohio] and Republican leadership should condemn Ryan’s remarks,” he told the National Journal.
“Calling our senior generals and admirals, like [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin] Dempsey, ‘liars’ is totally out of bounds,” Smith said.
“You may not agree with everything they say, but accusing them of bowing to political pressure and lying to Congress about national security is an insult to them and the brave men and women they command on behalf of our grateful nation.”
President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed on a budget Aug. 2, 2011, calling for defense cuts of $487 billion over a decade, as Washington ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and attempts to reduce the nation’s deficit.
Those defense cuts were included in Obama’s $3.8 trillion 2013 budget proposal released Feb. 13.
Ryan’s alternative $3.5 trillion 2013 budget plan, proposed March 20, passed the House 228-191 Thursday. It would let the military budget grow with inflation over 10 years.
An additional $500 billion in defense cuts could go into effect next year unless Congress stops them. The cuts are part of $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts that could be triggered by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which Obama signed Aug. 2, intended to end an era of trillion-dollar deficits.
The Pentagon said Thursday it anticipated hundreds of thousands of layoffs in the defense industry if lawmakers failed to reverse the $500 billion in cuts.
If anyone needs a plan for trading, scalp traders are at the top of the list. Scalping requires a great deal of nerves and a temper for losses. On the other side of the coin, scalp trading does offer the ability to churn huge percentage profits on a large or small account balance. Scalp trading is similar to day trading, but works on smaller price movements and shorter periods of time. while day traders hold positions intraday, scalping requires buying and selling by the minute.
The time differential
Scalping the markets means that you must have access to the markets all the time. when scalping, rarely would it be wise to leave your trading desk without closing orders. though scalping works on small price movements, high leveraged accounts are often used up to 400:1 on Forex accounts to generate profits that are unheard of anywhere else. the key to consistent profits in scalping is a solid trading plan and money management.
Risk and money management tips
If you use a highly leveraged account, it is critical that you pay deep attention to risk and money management. though a 1% movement in price hardly affects a long term investing account, in the game of scalping, that same 1% movement could mean a gain of 400% on your stake, or a loss four times greater than your stake. There is much to lose when scalping the markets, but just as much to profit.
Scalp traders have one large disadvantage
The biggest disadvantage to scalping is the high commissions and spreads that traders rack up when making numerous trades per day and sometimes tens of trades per hour. In the stock market and in the Forex markets, the amount of money that is taken out of a trading account by the spread and fees is often enough to turn a profitable trader to a big time loss. considering that the purchase of 10 lots of a currency pair often costs as much as $400 with a four pip spread, scalping requires much of the profits to go only to trading fees. Investing rarely creates the same kind of expenses, nor any method that requires buying and selling infrequently.
There are many traders that scalp, and these professional traders have a knack for scalping the markets and generating huge results. But it doesn’t require a professional to do well with scalping; many small investors are finding it as an extremely lucrative way to make large amounts of money with small amounts of capital and trade from the comfort of their own home. Scalping is a great method for anyone, that is, if your nerves can handle it.
Veteran spending missing from Paul Ryan’s Budget (Video)
Karen Finney, “There is one place where veterans , remarkably, are absent. congressman paul ryan ‘s new budget. in the nearly 100-page document, the word veteran does not appear even once. but without saying that word or writing that word, this budget, if enacted, would cut $11 billion from veteran spending when compared to president obama ‘s budget. someone who has taken this issue on is john salts, who is the chairman of vets.org. john, thank you for being with us.”
Karen Finney, “The piece you wrote for the post was really spot on in terms of just looking at some of the impact these cuts would have on veterans that i think a lot of people don’t realize. can you tell us about that?”
John Soltz, “sure. obviously you mentioned the $11 billion. republicans have had a long history, even under george bush , where they underfunded the va and they had to crawl back to congress and ask for another billion dollars. they’ve always had a long history. when we were trying to pass the gi bill , six republicans even voted against the gi bill which everyone uses. when you start attacking social security or medicare , it cuts across the board. a lot of veterans are in rural communities . they can’t use tri-care primary. that’s always a secondary care for them after their va, so a lot of them rely on medicare as a second form of insurance. when you start slashing medicare you’re hurting 70% veterans .” See the Video
Print This Post
Paul Ryan & Republicans Unveil ‘Path To Prosperity’ To Counter Obama’s Spend Your Way To Hell Plan (Video)
Paul Ryan & Republicans Unveil ‘Path To Prosperity’ To Counter Obama’s Spend your way To Hell plan – Gateway Pundit
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) the Chairman of the House Budget Committee discusses the Republican budget plan of less debt, lower taxes, and greater opportunity for generations to come. or, we can choose as a nation to continue down the Democrats’ spend your way to hell plan that kills jobs, increases taxes, and ruins opportunity for future generations.
Committee on Budget
If you agree it’s morally wrong to ignore the most predictable crisis in U.S. history, this is your budget:
.House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan details what the choice of two futures means: a path to debt and decline versus a stronger, more prosperous path of less debt, lower taxes, and greater opportunity for generations to come. The video transcript is here.
Byron York has more on the Republican plan. Tuesday marks the 1,056th day since Congress passed a yearly budget for the federal government.
Click HERE for Rest Of Story
1. Prioritize Defense Spending to keep America Safe
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 government’s top priority.
Providing for the common defense: this budget rejects proposals to make thoughtless, across-‐the-‐board cuts in funding for national defense. instead, it provides $554 billion for national defense spending, an amount that is consistent with America’s military goals and strategies. this budget preserves necessary defense spending to protect vital national interests today and ensures future real growth in defense spending to modernize the armed forces for the challenges of tomorrow.
Reprioritizing sequester savings to protect the nation’s security: The defense budget is 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 2011.3 this reduction would be on top of the $487 billion in cuts over ten years proposed in President Obama’s budget. this budget eliminates these additional cuts in the defense budget by replacing them with other spending reductions. Spending restraint is critical, and defense spending needs to be executed with effectiveness and accountability. but government should take care to ensure that spending is prioritized according to the nation’s needs, not treated indiscriminately when it comes to making cuts. The nation has no higher priority than safeguarding the safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home and abroad.