5 Reasons why choosing Paul Ryan was a great decision

Minutes ago in Norfolk, Virginia, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was introduced as Mitt Romney’s running mate. It turns out all that talk about Romney being risk averse was a bigger head fake that those bogus rumors of considering Condi Rice.

There are five reasons why Mitt Romney’s bold pick of Paul Ryan is great for America.

1. Picking a Catholic running mate means that the Vice Presidential debate will feature two people who profess the Catholic faith but who are on opposite sides of life, marriage and religious liberty. The contrast couldn’t be greater. Paul Ryan has been outspoken on life and marriage. Joe Biden has supported abortion and pushed the White House to support same-sex ‘marriage.’ As CatholicVote noted yesterday, Paul Ryan has denounced the mandate: “This is much, much bigger than about contraception. This is about religious freedom, First Amendment rights, and how this progressive philosophy of fungible rights of a living breathing constitution really clashes and collides with these core rights that we built our society and country around.”

2. For the first time since Roe v. Wade, the Republican party will have a pro-life Catholic on the national ticket. The Republican Party has only nominated a Catholic once on the national ticket, when Barry Goldwater tapped New York Rep. William Miller on the 1964 ticket. And thankfully, Republican primary voters have, in the past, said no to pro-abortion Republican candidates like Rudy Guiliani. Paul Ryan has been a strong and consistent pro-life vote in Congress.

3. The Church, as well as the country, can have a conversation about government spending within its means. It’s one of the most important economic challenges facing us right now. Social Security and Medicare are set to go supernova in the budget as a title wave of Baby Boomers retire. Making the decision to slow down the rate of growth in these programs (not even actual cuts) would bring our fiscal house in order. But we’ll have to get beyond the hot air and vicious attacks.

4. And now we’ll have that national conversation on subsidiarity, too. The Obama campaign has said that they modeled their health care plan after Mitt Romney. But even if that’s true, it forgets the principle of federalism — the notion that the federal government should be limited to a few functions, allowing states and local communities (and civic organizations) the opportunity to tackle the problems in ways that work best for them. A one-size-fits-all solution has to work for the military, but why should we only have one health care plan across 3,000 miles?

5. Paul Ryan comes from a Midwestern blue collar district, critical to the GOP’s 2012 effort. For many years it was held by Les Aspin, a Democrat who became Clinton’s Defense Secretary. In fact, President Clinton bested Bob Dole in this district by about 12 points. If Republicans want to win the White House, they’ll need to win the hearts and minds of people like those who live in Wisconsin’s First District. Paul Ryan speaks their language and understands their concerns and is a natural person to make the case in industrial Catholic cities like Dubuque, Saginaw, and Toledo.

Mitt Romney went bold and picked Paul Ryan as his running mate. We’re now going to have an election based on ideas. We’ll have that much needed debate on Medicare spending. But we’re also not walking away from a debate on the HHS mandate and life and marriage, too.

Game on.

2,193 views

Categories:Uncategorized

44 thoughts on “5 Reasons why choosing Paul Ryan was a great decision

  1. em1 says:

    The author confuses constitutional federalism (secular concept) and subsidiarity (theological one).

    We — thank God! do not live in a theocracy, and must respect others’ “free exercise” (or none) of their “religion” just as much as we expect them to respect ours.

    It would be inappropriate for the Catholic doctrine of “subsidiarity” to be the basis of federal law/society/budget.

    As below-quoted author Winters notes (response to this author on another recent blog post does not address this point adequately, not even about what subsidiarity is):

    Ryan “could not tell the difference between subsidiarity and sausage,’’ writes Michael Sean Winters in the National Catholic Reporter. “It is true that subsidiarity advocates resolving all social, political and economic issues at the level of social organization closest to the individual. But, it is a two-way street. If lower levels of social organization — the family, the community, local government — cannot solve an issue, then it is incumbent upon the higher levels, like the federal government, to step in. Subsidiarity, after all, comes from the Latin word subsidium, help.”

    Federalism & subsidiarity may be analogous concepts.

    But, as the Latin translation of the latter shows, Catholics are strongly bound to help — at whatever level.

    This, their personal belief, has nothing necessarily to do with why/how the gov’t at any level should step in.

    Similarly, there are a lot of comments on blog posts that appear to confuse the function of “charity” & provision of social services to citizens.

    Again, charity is a personal/religious concept, give to poor, widow, orphan, strangers in your land etc. (present since Torah), then exponentially raised to a higher level by Jesus.

    Provision of societal services to citizens is what (even very) secular gov’ts do (i.e., for no religious/ charitable reason at all) because the only legitimate function justifying governments’ existence is to promote the better lives of their citizens, as our own founding documents so eloquently state:

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Until We disestablish this Constitution as the basis of our country, all social services to citizens (past, present, being debated today, and to come) are “given” for the noble purposes stated above.

    John Adam, e.g., said the rich of our country pay more for the military and they should: for it is the military that secures their wealth. What has happened to this patriotic understanding of the purpose of taxes to pay for the common good? The income tax was only after all added in the early 20th century by constitutional amendment because We the People wanted to, believed we should, pay one!

    Moreover, insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare are communitarian societal goals.

    While Jesus Christ may urge us to follow such on a personal “charitable” level — so as not to suffer the pernicious soul-corroding effects of the cult of individualism so decried by our two latest great Pontiffs (the sort of atomistic Randian “rational self-maximizer” who would view exercising a preferential option for the poor as the product of religious brainwashed weakness) — Jesus Christ also told us flatly to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

    What is Caesar’s? Taxes!

    For the building of roads, provision of other social services, support of the gov’t … even a gov’t that we must assume Jesus well knew was (exceedingly) corrupt and tyrannical.

    Our First Amendment happens to be a secular mirror, a perfect follow-on to Jesus’s injunction to us.

    For our democratic republic or republican democracy (i.e., we have no king) is organized to allow us each freely render to God whatever we each perceive to be God’s.

    But part of what we must render to Caesar — to keep the societal peace, to have a better human secular community than Hobbes’ idea that life was nasty, brutish and short — is that we don’t venture into theocracy on the secular side, don’t mix our structures of sacred and profane: so here don’t call all gov’t's necessary, time-honored functions of providing social services “charity.”

    That way lies solipsism, and a disregard for our brothers/sisters as citizens, for it’s very clear from the comments on all the blogs on this site that how much each person in his/her conscience chooses to contribute as “charity” varies widely from a little to a lot.

    But that is not the foundation on which gov’t's provide services to citizens — they do that because the only reason for gov;”s’ existence is TO provide services to citizens.

  2. Paul says:

    Those who support Ryan’s budget should be ashamed.
    It cuts taxes on the rich, again, and eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. Under the Ryan budget Mitt Romney who pulled $20 million from our economy last year while not working would have paid NOTHING. Ryan’s budget is not about balancing the budget or reducing debt. It does not accomplish that. It is a further transfer of wealth from the less-fortunate, and the government programs intended to assist them, to the wealthy.

    Under Ryan’s plan I will no longer get a child credit for the remaining child in the house, and my taxes will increase to where I’m paying the full 25% in taxes. Frankly, paying taxes does not bother me, but not to line the pockets of the greedy.

    The Ayn Rand philosophy of “Me first” is truly, literally, evil.

  3. Jack says:

    Great guy if you believe that self is the most important thing Jesus taught us.

    Ryan embraces the extreme philosophy of Ayn Rand. Ryan heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “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,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.”

  4. MLsouth says:

    I’d say that our country is in desperate need of some R&R!!! Looking forward to giving Obama the pink slip in November!!! :0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.