Paul Ryan Speech: Harry Reid's Plan

On July 29, 2011, while speaking in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Paul Ryan exposes the ridiculousness of Harry Reid's plan to address the debt.

Video.

Who Killed Grandma?

Paul Ryan 2012 Reelection

The lead story of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online edition is a "what if" piece by Craig Gilbert.

It's a Democrat fantasy about Paul Ryan struggling to win reelection and the possibility of him losing.

It's a very odd article, something that reads more like Democrat party campaign literature than news.

As the fiscal voice of the GOP and the architect of its plan to scale back Medicare, Paul Ryan is the Republican many Democrats would most like to defeat next year.

A Ryan loss would cost his party a lot more than a seat in Congress. It would deprive it of one of its most influential figures. And it would be a huge blow to its policy agenda, which Ryan has played a central role in crafting.

Could Ryan, often touted as a candidate for Senate or even president, lose a re-election bid for his own U.S. House seat?

That would be a shock. By any conventional calculus, the odds are substantially against it.

At the same time, Democrats are correct in saying this contest won't be a nonevent like Ryan's past campaigns. Wisconsin has been turned upside down politically since the last time Ryan was on a ballot.

"It will definitely be a race he's not used to running," says his likely Democratic opponent, Kenosha County Supervisor Rob Zerban.

In other words, prepare for national money to probably pour into the state again, this time to bloody Ryan.

I'm sure Obama would encourage roughing Ryan up.

Gilbert concludes:

Ryan will enjoy obvious advantages next year (money, the makeup of the district, his own political skills, his electoral history). But there are major wild cards: the political fallout from his Medicare plan, the impact of having Obama on the ballot (and possibly even Walker if there's a successful recall drive next year), and the mad intensity of Wisconsin politics these days.

Gilbert seems to be giving a "you gotta believe" pep talk to Democrats: Stop Ryan. Recall Walker. Reelect Obama.

I think Obama being on the ballot will help Ryan, not hurt him.

This election is going to be a referendum on Obama's policies and his stunning ineffectiveness, especially in terms of the economy.

Paul Ryan: 'Grandma Off Cliff' Ad

The Agenda Project, a Leftist group, has created a truly disgusting political ad.

It attacks the Republicans' budget plan by depicting a figure resembling Paul Ryan pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair in a park-like setting. "America the Beautiful" plays in the background while birds sing.

The man ignores a sign, "Do not go beyond barricade," and the woman begins to panic and struggle. Eventually, he throws her off a cliff, literally. The man then simply turns back, pushing the empty wheelchair.

The words "Is America beautiful without Medicare?" appear on the screen.

Then, "Ask Paul Ryan and his friends in Congress (202)225-3031."

Watch.



Really sick.

The Leftists have no shame, unless they're screaming "SHAME" at the top of their lungs.
____________________

Chris Matthews, MSNBC Democrat hack always yapping about ugly conservative rhetoric, really enjoyed the ad.

From Media Research Center:

A clearly amused Chris Matthews narrated and laughed at a liberal ad showing Republican Paul Ryan murdering an elderly woman by throwing her off a cliff. This is the same MSNBC anchor who railed against "ugly" conservative talk and wondered if it led to the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

...[O]n the January 11, 2011 Hardball, Matthews highlighted the shooting of Giffords and foamed, "People like Mark Levin, Michael Savage, for example who every time you listen to them are furious, furious at the Left with anger that just builds and builds in their voice, and by the time they go to commercial, they’re just in some rage, every night, with ugly talk. Ugly sounding talk."

He lamented that conservatives see the other side "as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil." Matthews then implicated these talk radio hosts in the shooting of Giffords by a deranged person: "And my question is doesn't that give the moral license to people who have crazy minds to start with?"

Yet, on Tuesday, Matthews joked, "Finally, grandma gets thrown off the cliff." Earlier, he called it an "ad that's over the edge, literally." But, this was also made in an amused tone.

And the Leftists insist that MSNBC doesn't have a liberal bias?

Right.

Here's the video:



Transcript

CHRIS MATTHEWS: And talk about an ad that's over the edge, literally. A liberal group has produced [ad plays onscreen.]- catch- Oh, there you see it, not holding back on that one. [Laughs.] Throwing grandma or- that's- I think it is supposed to be Paul Ryan pushing the wheelchair with grandma over the edge. That's in the Sideshow. We will show you the full ad.

MATTHEWS: Finally, grandma gets thrown off the cliff. A liberal group called The Agenda Project has just released an ad whacking at Paul Ryan's to privatize Medicare. Subtle? This ad is not.

[Plays ad of Ryan throwing an old woman off a cliff.]

MATTHEWS: Boy, I love the point of view on that one as she tries to slow down with her feet. Anyway, the irony here, Paul Ryan may be driving the Republican Party off the cliff.

Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich's run for president got off to a terrible start.

He was extremely critical of Paul Ryan on Meet the Press.

Transcript

NEWT GINGRICH: I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.

Gingrich had to back off his remarks. He claimed he was taken out of context by "gotcha media."



It's not good that Gingrich started off his campaign with this firestorm.

Paul Ryan fired back.

"With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan quipped, during an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show.

Conservatives in the media weren't the only ones shaking their heads over Gingrich's comments. At least one voter in Iowa was very angry about the way Gingrich attacked Paul Ryan. That voter had the opportunity to tell Gingrich exactly how he felt.

Video.



Transcript

IOWA VOTER: (Shaking Gingrich's hand) What you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.

NEWT GINGRICH: I didn't do anything to Paul Ryan.

VOTER: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the House.

GINGRICH: No, I said...

VOTER: You're an embarrassment to our party.

GINGRICH: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

VOTER: Why don't you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself?

GINGRICH: I'm sorry you feel that way.

Bottom line: Gingrich is not going to be the Republican party's nominee for president.

Obama: White House Correspondents' Dinner (Video)

Obama showed the Republicans no mercy at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

His Paul Ryan jokes didn't go over well at all.



Obama showed footage of his offical "birth video," a clip from Disney's The Lion King. After the clip, Obama informed the FOX News table it was a joke.

Obama: Long-Form Birth Certificate

Years from now, people will probably remember where they were when they heard the news.

Today, Obama released his long-form birth certificate.

Historic!

Watch video of Obama's goofy announcement of his birth:



Here's the transcript of Obama's remarks, from the White House.

Obama tries to make the case that he followed the birth certificate speculation with amusement, but now it was time to end it, to get serious, and let go of the "silliness."

Really?

It took years for Obama to decide it's time to get serious?

He's a little slow.

So why today?

Notice it's dated April 25, 2011, by Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., State Registrar.



(I didn't know his mom's name was Stanley.)

What prompted this move after years and years of questions?

Was the White House firing a shot across the bow to get Donald Trump to back off, to discredit him?

I don't think so. I think Obama is enjoying the Trump circus. Paul Ryan is Obama's worst nightmare. The reality of life in America under Obama is his enemy.

The birth certificate issue was always a plus for Obama.

So why would Obama want to let go of it?

My theory: Obama is jealous of Prince William and Kate Middleton and the "wedding of the century."

He needed to do something big. He's not invited to the wedding. He didn't make the cut. He's out of the spotlight. He's dwarfed by the frivolous Royals, a wedding.

Poor Obama.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Paul Ryan: Family Received Benefits After Father's Death

The Leftists have no shame.

Paul Ryan's father died young, and the family received survivor benefits for a while.

Liberals are using that to attack Ryan.

From Hans Bader, the Washington Examiner:

At the age of 16, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., suffered the death of his 55-year-old father. Because of his father’s early death, the government made survivor payments for a few years to Paul Ryan’s family – including for Paul Ryan himself. Ryan collected benefits for two years, until he turned 18.

The net effect of the death of Paul Ryan’s father was likely to reduce taxpayer expenditures on Ryan’s family, since retirees typically collect at least a decade’s worth of benefits. (My own father died five years short of retirement. The result was that my mother, who could otherwise have collected spousal benefits when he retired, instead had to wait well over a decade for benefits, reducing her lifetime social security benefits. She was effectively punished for his death.)

But the Daily Kos blog is now using his father's early death against Ryan. A Daily Kos diary attacks Ryan in a post entitled, “Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18.” Never mind that Ryan’s recent budget proposal doesn’t in fact seek to abolish entitlements, much less get rid of Social Security. It merely seeks to cut the rate of growth of exploding Medicare costs by eventually giving its recipients vouchers they can use to shop around for medical care.

Not all Daily Kos diaries reflect the views of Daily Kos as a whole, but this one does, since it was briefly featured on the top of the front page of Daily Kos, and is still listed as a “recommended” blog post in the sidebar on the right side of Daily Kos's main page. More than 183 Daily Kos readers have commented in response to it – virtually all in agreement with its hateful sentiments.

Here's the post from the slimy Daily Kos: "Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18."

The post attacking Ryan ends with this:

What an evil hypocrite.

No, Paul Ryan is not evil, though Obama tried to paint him as evil.

No, Paul Ryan is not a hypocrite, as Bader explains.

It's sick that the Leftists would cite the death of Ryan's dad to attack him so unfairly.

The fact is the Daily Kos liberals are fringe nuts.

They are filled with hate. It blinds them from the truth, which is convenient. The truth is their enemy. Their extreme agenda doesn't fit with reality.

Paul Ryan is not evil and he's not a hypocrite.

When it comes to the Daily Kos minions, however, I think a case could be made that many of them are not good people.

Donald Trump and Paul Ryan

I watch Celebrity Apprentice.

I don't always agree with Donald Trump's decisions on the show.

There was no question that he should have fired Gary Busey instead of Mark McGrath. It was a move that Trump did purely for ratings. He wanted to keep the loony Busey around as long as he could.

Of course, it's only entertainment. It's a show. I don't have a problem with Trump trying to deliver a product that's as entertaining as possible. From a ratings standpoint, I suppose Trump exercised good judgment by keeping Busey another week. Trump is a showman.

In addition to being a showman, Trump is skilled at business. He has managed to amass a fortune. There's no question he's successful.

When it comes to diving into presidential politics, Trump is being a great showman. The fact that he's getting the media and some citizens to take him even remotely seriously as a candidate is testament to his skills as a performer.

However, when it comes to Trump's ability to be the voice and face of the conservative movement, the performance completely falls apart.

Savannah Guthrie interviewed Trump for the Today Show.

Guthrie didn't give Trump a chance to answer her questions, but putting that aside, Trump doesn't sound like someone with defined, solid principles.

When you compare what Trump has been trying to sell the American people in this round of media appearances with what he's said previously about issues and President George W. Bush and Obama, it makes Charlie Sheen appear more mentally stable than Trump.

Here's video of Guthrie's interview with The Donald:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Just before the 3:00 mark, Guthrie asks Trump about the Paul Ryan budget.

Transcript

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Do you support the Ryan plan to bring the deficit down by $4 trillion?

DONALD TRUMP: I'm very concerned about doing anything that's going to tinker too much with Medicare. I protect the senior citizens. Senior citizens are protected. They are lifeblood, as far as I'm concerned. I think Paul Ryan is too far out front with this issue. I think he ought to sit back and relax.

Excuse me. Savannah...

GUTHRIE: So how do you attack the deficit if you don't touch Medicare, the entitlements, as you well know, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? That's where the debt problem is. How do you address it if you're not going to touch Medicare?

TRUMP: Do you know how you do it? By stopping what's going on in the world. The world is just destroying our country. These other countries are sapping our strength. OPEC is sapping our strength. We can't pay $108 a barrel oil. It's sapping our country. And by the way, they are going to raise it higher because now Saudi Arabia said, 'There's plenty of oil. We're going to cut back.' Excuse me...

GUTHRIE: How does that go to the debt crisis?

TRUMP: Well, I'm saying what we want to do is create a strong country again and you can solve the deficit problem the easiest way.

GUTHRIE: But would you raise taxes to attack the deficit?

TRUMP: I don't think you have to. And let me just tell you, if we get this economy going again and we can do it by getting jobs, by bringing our jobs back, bringing them back. Let the other countries worry about themselves.

GUTHRIE: Should the U.S. cut defense spending to attack the deficit?

TRUMP: No. No, not in my opinion. We need great defense. I guarantee you of all of the Republicans, I'm the strongest on defense.

It's possible that NBC did an awful job of editing the interview, but as aired, Trump is dissing Paul Ryan.

I don't think a serious Republican presidential candidate would say that a powerhouse like Ryan should "sit back and relax."

Trump complains about other countries sapping our strength. I think he's serving to sap the strength from potential Republican candidates at the moment.

I look forward to June when Trump announces that he is NOT running for president, but there will be another season of Celebrity Apprentice.

S&P Downgrade and Obama's Speech

Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States rating outlook to negative.

The White House responded by claiming it was a "political judgment."

The Wall Street Journal is not on the same page as the White House, but it agrees that politics are involved in the assessment.

Chief White House economist Austan Goolsbee declared that S&P had made a "political judgment," and we'd have to agree, though probably not for the same reasons. The bulk of S&P's analysis is taken up with repeatedly citing what it sees as next-to-no chance that Washington will do anything significant on deficit reduction this year or next.

"The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term challenges will persist until at least after the national elections in 2012," said the credit rating outfit. S&P's announcement is almost wholly a political analysis of the budget outlook.

There is only one reason the rating agency could suddenly have turned this dark on politics in Washington: President Obama's speech at George Washington University last Wednesday. Mr. Obama's "fiscal policy" speech may have sent progressive pundits cart-wheeling, but its political effect was to poison the prospect for budget negotiations.

The harshness of Mr. Obama's anti-Republican rhetoric and the universal conclusion that this was a Presidential campaign speech make it very difficult for GOP Congressional leaders to believe they can enter into a budget negotiation in which the White House will deal in good faith.

The hyper-politicized Obama White House calculated that the release of a GOP proposal by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan was the moment to unveil its re-election counter-attack. This week Mr. Obama is taking that speech on what looks like the campaign trail, first at a Virginia community college and then in front of the millionaires and billionaires at Facebook's headquarters in Silicon Valley.

S&P, as did many others, said it saw the Obama and Ryan budget proposals "as the starting point of a process," but "That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide." And: "We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement." And this stalemate will continue "over the next two years."

S&P is simply connecting the political dots after last week's un-Presidential tirade against the GOP.

...The Ryan budget has been criticized as heartless and cruel. But its purpose is to address the rising U.S. debt problem without tanking the U.S. economy, and to do so before a truly heartless and cruel credit downgrade of the sort S&P gave Japan in January. Mr. Obama's response was simply to mock the GOP proposal.

The ratings agencies are hardly the last word on U.S. economic health. But the S&P outlook is a warning to the White House that financial markets have noticed that this President seems to have decided that his path to re-election lies in demonizing his opponents rather than seeing to the nation's fiscal well-being.

The Wall Street Journal nails it.

Obama sent a loud and clear message last week. Rather than showing his interest to work with Republicans for the good of the nation, Obama made a campaign speech.

"[T]he S&P outlook is a warning to the White House that financial markets have noticed that this President seems to have decided that his path to re-election lies in demonizing his opponents rather than seeing to the nation's fiscal well-being."

Exactly.

Obama: 'Think We're Stupid'

We didn't know much about Obama when he was elected president.

We've learned a lot about the man since then.

We've witnessed the way he governs and we're living with the results.

We've seen how he handles crises. We've watched the tactics he employs compared to the rhetoric he uses.

Of course, prior to Obama's election, some of us had major concerns that Obama was not the figure he and the media built him up to be. The myth didn't match the reality.

There were moments that revealed the truth. His own words exposed the real Obama.

We heard his condescension.

"It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

We caught a glimpse of his economic philosophy.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

We viewed his racial attitudes and willingness to throw even his own grandmother under the bus.

"[My grandmother] is a typical white person."

Since assuming office, Obama has amassed a pile of embarrassments, unbefitting the leader of the Free World. Again and again, we've witnessed his poor judgment, his bad decisions, his penchant for leading poorly as well as his failure to lead at all.

He's not at all a great intellect. He's not the post-partisan, post-racial, transcendental figure he claims to be.

Not even close.

Yesterday, while fundraising in Chicago, Obama had an alleged "open mic" incident.

He supposedly didn't know that his comments were being heard by the press. I'm not so sure about that. I think it all may have been a ruse.

From CBS News:

In what he thought was a private chat with campaign donors Thursday evening, President Obama offered the most revealing behind-the-scenes account to date of his budget negotiations with GOP leaders last week.

CBS Radio News White House correspondent Mark Knoller listened in to an audio feed of Mr. Obama's conversation with donors after other reporters traveling with the president had left the room.

In the candid remarks, Mr. Obama complains of Republican attempts to attach measures to the budget bill which would have effectively killed parts of his hard-won health care reform program.

"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?'" recalled the president of his closed-door negotiations on the bill to fund the federal government until September.

...Mr. Obama said he told House Speaker John Boehner and members of his staff that he'd spent a year and a half getting the sweeping health care legislation passed -- paying "significant political costs" along the way -- and wouldn't let them undo it in a six-month spending bill.

...Speaking into a microphone which he may not have realized was still relaying his remarks to the White House press room -- where Knoller had been listening to earlier remarks that were open to the press -- Mr. Obama bemoaned GOP leaders' attempts to attach a measure to the budget bill which would have cut funding for Planned Parenthood.

"Put it in a separate bill," the president said he told Boehner and his staff. "We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."

..."When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Mr. Obama told his supporters. "So it's not on the level."

Audio of Obama's remarks.



Obama is a very small man. He sounds angry and bitter. And he despises Paul Ryan.

Ryan gets under his skin.

Why?

Because Paul Ryan reveals Obama to be a demagogue. And, I say this with all due respect, stupid.

The truth has always been Obama's enemy.

Krauthammer: Obama's Speech

Charles Krauthammer slams Obama's budget speech, calling it a "disgrace."

Video and Transcript, from NewsBusters:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I thought it was a disgrace. I thought I’ve rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan, and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But we're a year-and-a-half away from Election Day, and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn't even get to his own alternative until more than half-way through the speech, and when he did, he threw out these numbers suspended in midair with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers which mean absolutely nothing. The speech was really and was almost entirely an attack on the Ryan plan. And it was deeply dishonest.

BRET BAIER, HOST: Paul Ryan’s plan. The budget.

KRAUTHAMMER: Let me give you one example how dishonest it was. He went on and on about how the Republicans want to steal from your grandma to lower taxes on the rich. And he talked about the Bush tax cuts and how much he’s going to stand on the bridge and oppose any extension which is what he knows how to do. He has done it over and over for the last six years. The Ryan plan is not about the Bush tax cuts. It transcends them. It's about what the deficit, what Obama’s own commission had recommended: that you strip out loopholes and you lower the rates for everyone. It’s not about whether it should be the Bush rates or the Clinton rates. The whole new approach which the Simpson-Bowles commission had recommended itself. In fact, Bowles had recommended in one of its scenarios a high rate of 23 percent. Ryan’s is at 25 percent. Obama did this knowing that this is a way to play to his base. It was a speech that was quite remarkable in how demagogic it was, and I say that with all due respect.

Yes, Obama's speech was a complete disaster, with all due respect.

Paul Ryan and Mark Levin - Obama's Speech, April 13, 2011

Yesterday, Paul Ryan was interviewed by Mark Levin on his radio program.

They discussed Obama's speech.

Ryan was really ticked off.

Transcript

MARK LEVIN: I watched this speech today, Congressman, and I really couldn't believe it.

PAUL RYAN: I was sitting about 12 feet away from him, right in the front.

LEVIN: Oh, really?

RYAN: Yeah.

LEVIN: I mean, I'm thinking to myself, does he have a grasp of what the hell's going on in this country?

RYAN: Well, what I got out of it was he basically said that people like myself and Jeb Hensarling, who was sitting right to my right, are un-American, that we're interested in pitting children with autism or Down syndrome against millionaires and billionaires, that we're ending America as we know it, and if only we'd kind of get on with his program everything would be OK.

I've never seen a president give a speech like this before. I've never seen a president stoop to this level of, you know, distortion, demagoguery, partisanship.

He invited us to come to the speech - myself, Hensarling, and Dave Camp, the three of us who are chairmen and we're on the fiscal commission. We were led to believe that there was going to be an olive branch, that he wanted to talk about mutual agreement and respect. I was led to believe that there was going to be a Social Security plan he was going to offer. And then we get this total political broadside. It really did quite honestly kind of surprise me.

I expected these kinds of comments from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid when we put this budget out. That kind of goes without saying, but to get these things from the president - just amazing to me.

And it really poisons the well. I mean, he's not talking about trying to bridge differences or find common ground on this or that area. He's basically trying to demean his political adversaries and set up a bunch of straw men and then knock them down and try to win the debate by default.

I'm not sure who said it but he's basically, 'I'm a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.'

What we got was he just wants to raise taxes.

...We got a campaign today. We got a campaign speech, and we got a very, very vilifying campaign speech. And that sure makes it tough to get this thing fixed.

Listen to the full interview here.

Paul Ryan's Critics

The Wall Street Journal dissects the "liberal assault on the GOP budget."

One point of a document as subversive as Paul Ryan's 2012 budget is to provoke debate, and has it ever. But amid the thoughtful musings about starving orphans and grandma in a snowbank, could his critics at least get their facts right?

Let's unpack the distortions.

The WSJ proceeds to go through the attacks being launched against Paul Ryan's plan, covering five areas:

• Deficits and debt
• Tax cuts for "the rich"
• Medicare "cuts"
• Real health-care reform
• Health-care inflation

Read the details.

The conclusion:

These attacks amount to false fronts for the real objection, which is over the role of government. Mr. Ryan's critics understand very well that he wants to substitute markets for bureaucratic central planning. What he would dismantle isn't Medicare, but its system of one-size-fits-all coverage and price controls. The liberal answer to runaway costs, passed as part of ObamaCare, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board that will decide how much the government will pay for what treatments and was deliberately shielded from Congressional supervision.

Medicare "as we know it" will change because it must. The only issue is how. Mr. Ryan is offering Americans a reform rooted in consumer choice and private competition, rather than political control and bureaucratic rationing. This is why he is under such ferocious liberal assault.

Keep this information in mind when Obama delivers his budget address tonight.

You can't buy what Obama's selling, not if you believe in liberty and choice and the private sector.

On the other hand, if you want excessive government control in your life and you don't mind giving up your freedom, reject Paul Ryan's plan.
________________

Read "Obama Puts Taxes on Table."

Read "Eat the Rich."

Read "Three Cheers for Paul Ryan...On Second Thought, Make it Four."

Feingold and Ryan Make Bi Proposal

Janesville, Wisconsin natives Democrat Senator Russ Feingold and Republican 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan have joined forces to cut pork.

Yesterday, they unveiled their legislation to establish a line-item veto to enable the President to target wasteful earmarks that have been tacked on to bills.

Oak Creek -- It might not seem like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Russ Feingold have a lot in common, representing different political ideologies in separate houses of the U.S. Congress.

But there are a few similarities the House Republican and the Senate Democrat can claim: Both are Janesville natives and Craig High School graduates, and their fathers practiced law in the same building.

Add to that list an emphasis on fiscal conservatism.

The two came together today in Oak Creek to announce a line-item veto bill aimed at reigning in wasteful spending, they said.

"When it comes down to it, we're two guys from Janesville who are very familiar with and comfortable with Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility," Feingold told The Janesville Gazette before the press conference this morning.

The bill targets "pork-barrel spending"-money earmarked for projects unrelated to the thrust of a bill to please individual lawmakers.

..."We are hearing more and more complaints about this extra spending stuck in bills at the last moment," Feingold said. "The American people want some limits on these games that are played in Washington."

The bill, which Ryan and Feingold have jokingly dubbed "the Janesville line-item veto," wouldn't give the president power to remove portions of a bill-the typical definition of a line-item veto.

Instead, it would allow him to highlight earmarks and send them back to Congress to vote on separately.

"Under this system, Congress makes the final version and executes the action," Ryan said. "That's what keeps the power of the purse in legislative hands."

...Both legislators said they hope people take notice of the bipartisan nature of the bill.

"For bills of this size to get passed in Congress, they need to be bipartisan," Ryan said. "We both hate wasteful spending in Congress, so it seemed just a natural that Russ and I team up on this."

It's nice that the Janesville boys have teamed up.

This legislation makes sense.

It's not like that disastrous bipartisan attack on free speech, McCain-Feingold.

This bill is good for the country.

The proposal includes a definition of earmarks to be applied to any bill sent to the president, not just giant budget measures.

Under the proposal, the president would have 30 days to propose a "rescission request" to Congress. Congress would have to vote within 12 legislative days on the request, which could include multiple earmarks.

To avoid gridlock from too many rescission requests, the president would be able to propose one package of earmarks per ordinary bill and two for larger measures, known as omnibus legislation. Lawmakers would have to vote on the entire package.

Looking at this politically, Feingold does benefit by joining forces with Ryan. He appears to be less of a fringe Leftist loon.

However, Feingold's far Left supporters shouldn't be too concerned. He still took shots at the President yesterday.

Feingold, a prominent critic of the war, said the president should have had a chance to remove some of the unrelated spending from that bill. But he argued President Bush and other critics were being disingenuous with their complaints.

He said the Iraq funding should have been included in the regular budget process - "It wasn't an emergency. They knew about this for a long time." He also noted that in the past, there was similar unrelated spending attached to Iraq measures.

Said Feingold: "The last supplemental, they got what they wanted, and there was plenty of pork and earmarks on it, and they didn't say a word."

See?

Feingold hasn't tempered his anti-Bush attacks or liberal extremism.

I think Ryan also gets some benefit politically by teaming with Feingold.

He gains name recognition nationally. That's good exposure for a rising star in the Republican Party.

This Feingold-Ryan thing makes me think of Election 2010, when Feingold will be up for reelection.

I think that Ryan would make a great challenger. In fact, I think he would have a real chance of unseating Feingold.

Their alliance on this legislation would make for an odd twist if they ran against each other in the future.

______________________________

Read Ryan's Press Release.

Read Feingold's Press Release.

(They're the same. If you read one, you've read them both.)