• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • VIDEO: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Tells MSNBC Where to Cut

    Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) made the case for preventing President Barack Obama’s impending job killing tax tsunami. When Matthews tried to play gotcha by asking Rep. Ryan “Where will you cut?” to pay for the tax cuts, Rep. Ryan was ready.

    First, he cited the budget he produced last year which cut $4.8 trillion in spending (you can read Heritage’s coverage here). Next, Rep. Ryan cited the $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending cuts he enumerated just two months ago. Finally, Rep. Ryan touted his Roadmap for America’s Future as a way to address our long-term deficits caused by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (you can read Heritage’s coverage here).

    We can cut taxes and still balance our budget by cutting spending. As Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl noted earlier this year,  if the federal government managed to return to the per-household spending level of the Reagan administration, the budget would be balanced by 2012 without any tax hikes. Just returning to the per-household spending levels that existed before the current recession would balance the budget by 2019.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    26 Responses to VIDEO: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Tells MSNBC Where to Cut

    1. Tommy, New Orleans says:

      Why did Representative Crowley get unhindered time to response? Yet Congressman Ryan was constantly interrupted? Agenda? Typical liberal responses, Ryan ANSWERS the questions, and Matthews moves the goalposts. Ryan discusses a figure that is nearly 2,000,000,000,000 and Matthews seriously tries to say that it's infinitesimal? What planet is this guy on? Well-done, Ryan.

    2. George Colgrove says:

      Man I would like to see this guy succeed. I do not want him to be President YET. He is doing the peoples work beautifully where he is. I would like a President however that can provide the leadership to get this agenda through.

    3. Rob says:

      Why does MSNBC allow Matthews to have a show if he won't do his research? Can't even do math!

      Paul Ryan for President, please. If conservatives can't get a majority in the house, at least he could veto all the liberal spending.

      http://therightofthepeople.wordpress.com

    4. Kevin Habib says:

      As one of the hated liberals who checks into this blog, Ryan would make a solid presidential candidate for 2016. As much as I disagree with many of his policy thoughts, I love the fact that he knows his stuff. he knows federal budget and economy and he's sharp and is passionate about what he believes. I beleive he's way off on how to fix the ecnomy and think the post above is absolutely absurd – to call for goign back to the per-household spending levels of reagan. Perhaps the silliest things I've ever heard. Reagan more than doubled deficits and over tripled the national debt. All this when there was no war, there was no great recession leaving him with revenues at a historic low.

      If Reagan is who you point to for doing it the right way, how come he left a deficit – where was his surplus?

      It's funny hwo you leave out the only 4 years of annual surplus came startign in 1993 – under Dem president and Dem Congress (nto a single republican voted for the Omnibus of 1993), yet it was first time in decades we actually had a surplus.

      Clinton left Bush with a 6 trillion projected surplus. And what did the conservative policies you are praising above do? Bush implemented the hertiage policies and created the biggest economic collapse in 5 decades, lead to biggest swing from surplus to deficit in history of the country, and took us into the worst recession since the great depression. Yet – you want to go back to Bush/Reagan ways.

      What's that saying about not knowing history?

      Regardless, I think Ryan is a real quality candidate. I could see Rubio being a top candidate as well, but I have not seen him in action like I've seen Ryan. The GOP has a handful of young guys to keep an eye on – cantor, chaffetz, mack, mcmorris, mchenry, putnam and schock. I have no clue why any members of GOP would support people like Palin, when you have real quality candidates who actually know their stuff around. Sooner the GOP can get rid of folks like Palin, the better for them.

    5. Kathy, Pennsylvania says:

      More lamestream lunacy! Why doesn't Matthews and other Journolist start discussing BO's out of control spending that's destroying our economy? Why doesn't Matthews report BO sending millions of US tax dollars to Kenya to overturn their Constitution in favor of abortion? Can Matthews even spell TREASON?

      Never mind. No need to answer such a silly question.

    6. Andy, USA says:

      I do believe that Chris Matthews got run over by the fact train. Paul Ryan is the real deal. Chris Matthews is a puppet.

    7. Skip, Phoenix Arizon says:

      Chris Matthews is misinformed. He is so busy spouting a leftist liberal agenda, he doesn't even listen to the many good points that Ryan makes!!! I don't watch MSNBC and now it is reinforced why I don't.

    8. JLP, TX says:

      I love how Matthews asked Ryan for specifics but didn't ask for specifics from Crowley.

      Ryan pretty much schooled Matthews…lol. "You have to understand, Chris, 75% of those people who pay that top tax rate are small businesses that file as individuals, not corporations." Shouldn't Matthews know this?

    9. Davis in Georgia says:

      How did Crowley get elected…?????

    10. T Ferris says:

      IIts obvious that Matthews doesnt know what he is talking about! Or Crowley for that matter! Go Ryan

    11. Teagan, Dallas Texas says:

      Wow! Chris Matthews appears to preemptively spew comebacks without deliberation on Rep. Paul Ryan's responses, and with such blatant disregard to him – even responding by interrupting! And, as noticed by others, Rep. Crowley was allow to state his canned answer without interruption. Rep. Ryan was responding readily with information to Matthew's queries about cuts, but as soon as the facts started coming, Matthews interrupts loudly as to drown out the facts. Such journalistic integrity Mr. Matthews displays.

    12. Lisa, MS says:

      Paul Ryan rocks! Wish we could clone him!

    13. Shelly, Commerce, mI says:

      Exactly where has the Obama administration done "pay as you go", I can answer that – NEVER!

    14. Buster Bunns says:

      Ryan nails it. Crowly mouths off about PAYGO yet the Democrats have yet to abide by it. Not one bill has been passed that has been paid for with savings gleaned elsewhere. Not one!

    15. John, Rhode Island says:

      While Ryan definitely took him to school when it came to the numbers, Matthews wasn't all wrong. There are many in the GOP who are unwilling to cut gov. They love their military and domestic pork, yet consistently bash on gov for out of control spending. Last I checked, I think we could count on 1 or 2 hands the number of Republicans who have signed on in support of Rep Ryan's budget. Those who won't sign on to a logical budget as Ryan has generated should really have their head examined and figure out if they're actually for a limited gov or they just say they are.

      Kudos Rep Ryan!

    16. Daniel, Afghanistan says:

      Why is it that when liberals talk about spending cuts one of the first three places mentioned is always the military? Does anyone think that cutting funds to the military will make our economy stronger? Lets cut government sponsored laziness. Cut funds going to people that are not putting anything into the system. Millions of people abuse welfare and medicare. Look at the abuse of cash aid in California. Hundreds of thousands being used at casino's and bingo hall's. That is not what my taxes are supposed to pay for. Go back to the constitution and read what is says about taxes and funding the military. Conservatives need to unite on a candidate and stop all the trivial arguments about this or that statement. Unite and back a candidate that is gonna do the most good. Rep. Paul seems like a squared away guy and I would like to see more Congressman like him.

    17. Janet PA says:

      I believe that it is Obama's desire to bury us in taxes and to grind our economy to a halt. I agree with Paul Ryan and I hope people will listen to his common sense ideas!

    18. Squidknuckle, Milwau says:

      @Kevin Habib. You have heard of the Cold War haven't you? You know, the one that we won. Many on the left dismiss this fact about Reagan, but he was indeed a wartime President.

      And also, Clinton did not have a surplus! Go to the Treasury website and you can see that every year he was in office, the national debt increased! EVERY YEAR! Why was this? Because he used intragovernmental holdings like Soical Security to "balance the budget." He can claim a surplus because the public debt was paid down, but the debt the government owed itself increased every year.

      Lastly, if you don't remember your history. Clinton did absolutely nothing but gut the military and stand aside as tensions in the Middle East grew. Then we got hit with 9/11 and we had to spend on military. Clinton's policies made GW look bad.

    19. Kevin Habib says:

      Come on Squid, you are comparing the Wars in Afghan and Iraq to the Cold War? That's a stretch. Reagan is considered, even by the Heritage staff, as a peacetime president. Look at home many times Reagan is cited as a 'peacetime' president in thsi heritage piece: http://www.heritage.org/About/Press/How-Great-was

      Clinton most certainly had a projected surplus. That is how we view things in the economic world, as heritage is viewing the Mid Session review and CBO's projected deficits – we look at the projections. Under Clinton, US has the first projected surplus since the late sixties. Yet again, Heritage disputes your information. In this piece, they talk about how the 2001 tax cuts won't hurt the economy sicne there was a projected $6 trillion SURPLUS: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2001/

      And to blamne Clinton for 9/11 is about as backwards as can be. I've always found it amusing how so mnay blamed Obama for the underwear bomber, but not a sinlge finger pointed at Bush Jr. for 9/11, when it is evident they dropped the ball. Two of the best pieces of evidence of how GW admin dropped the ball is simply to read the annual memo from Attorney General to Department of Justice on budget goals. In 2000 memo from Reno, counterterrorism with the top priority. it was the #1 priority of the Department of Justice. THEN, fast forward one year and see Attorney General Ashcroft's memo to DOJ on budget goals. It lays out the GW admisnitration's top 7 priorities. Counterterrorism isn't even listed. Wasn't even one fo the 7 items listed as priorities. Seems to me you have it a bit backwards. One admisnstration had it a top priority, the other didn't even have terrorism on the list – and guess which one got hit by biggest terrorist attack in US history? Links to the memos here for you to decide for yourself – http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/03/b3

    20. Billie says:

      curious to know the population of welfare recipients and social programs during reagans presidency to obama's now. How many recipients let go of the hand holding of government under reagan and how many citizens are desperately waiting to hold the hand of government and how many obama's leadership will force?

    21. robin-n.y. says:

      Thank you God for people like Paul Ryan!! He is obviously smart as a whip-and Obama during his faux meeting with repubs. steered clear of Mr Ryan.

      Hopefully,we'll take over the House to pull back on these maniacs!!

    22. Brandon Stewart Brandon says:

      Don't publish this.

    23. Brandon Stewart Brandon says:

      No seriously, don't publish this.

    24. ocinnc north carolin says:

      small business is on a capital strike we will not invest,create jobs or work our fingers to the bones to pay for the liberals crazy spending spree. I have to pay as I go,why don't they?

    25. Martha Coyote says:

      Great! Of course, it will take some pretty drastic action to return the U.S. population to the same number it was at the end of Reagan's term. Getting rid of any federal aid to the jobless is a good way to start. No actual killing involved, and the surplus is self-selected. If there are ten jobs, and 80 applicants, the best ten will survive, and the rest, and their families, will gradually disappear. Two birds, [well, jobless scum,] with one stone. Collective bargaining, with a bunch of ignorant nurses and fire-fighters and road-repairmen, etc., trying put their uninformed two cents in, is the worst way to do *anything*. The Koch brothers are used to running large industries, and would be glad to run things for us.

    26. Christopher of Houst says:

      Liberals unfortunately are allergic to facts and thus have to manufacture things that aren't true. Chris, Paul Ryan did outline what needed to be cut. You clearly were fishing for excuses when you need to fish more for the truth. This is why the American people are losing more and more respect for you guys. I appreciate Paul Ryan's leadership. I'm not sure about president because he just demonstrates his skills so well in the House. However, since I'm also not a believer in holding people back, in my administration I would nominate him for Treasury Secretary.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×