Mitt Romney

Romney and Ryan Would Return Us to the Bush Years

The Bush years were bad for freedom; without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.


We are in terrible straits this presidential election. We have a choice between a president who has posed more of a danger to personal freedom than any in the past 150 years and a Republican team that wants to return to Bush-style big government.

President Barack Obama has begun to show his hand at private fundraisers and in unscripted comments during his campaign. And the essence of his revelations is dark. His vision of a shared prosperity should frighten everyone who believes in freedom, because it is obvious that the president doesn't. He believes the federal government somehow possesses power from some source other than the Constitution that enables it to take from the rich and give to the poor. He calls this "a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared," and he declared, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Today in America, nearly half of all households receive either a salary or some financial benefit from the government; the other half pay for it. In Obama's vision for America, no one will be permitted to become too rich, no matter his skills and hard work. He somehow believes that government seizures and transfers of wealth generate prosperity. We know, of course, that the opposite occurs. Seizing wealth through taxation removes it from the private sector for investment. That produces job losses and government dependence on a massive scale.

The federal government has a debt of $16 trillion. We have that debt because both political parties have chosen to spend today and put the burden of paying for the spending onto future generations. The debt keeps increasing, and the feds have no intention of paying it off. Every time the government has wanted to increase its lawful power to borrow since World War II, members of Congress and presidents from both parties have permitted it to do so.

Last week, Gov. Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, blasted Obama for borrowing more than one trillion dollars in just the past year. He must have forgotten to look at the voting record of his designated running mate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan.

Ryan voted for nearly every request to raise the debt ceiling during his 14 years in Congress. He voted for TARP, the GM bailout and most of the recent stimulus giveaways. He also voted to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on a credit card, which added another trillion dollars to the government's debt. And he voted to assault the Constitution by supporting the Patriot Act and its extensions, as well as Obama's unconstitutional proposal to use the military to arrest Americans on American soil and detain those arrested indefinitely.

We have a rough idea of how Obama would bring about government control of private industry through Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. From Ryan's voting record, we have a rough idea of what Romney-Ryan would bring us: more of the Bush-era big government. In other words, Ryan is just another big-government Republican holding himself out as a fiscal conservative. Even his controversial budget proposals—which the House approved, but the Senate declined to address—would have increased government spending. It was less of an increase than Obama wanted, which is why the Senate Democrats refused to consider it, but it was not a cut in spending.

I am a firm believer that the Constitution means what it says. The federal government can only do what the Constitution authorizes it to do. The modern-day Republican and Democratic Parties have made a shambles of that principle. Nevertheless, I understand the "anybody but Obama" urge among those who fear his excesses, as do I. Obama has killed innocents, altered laws, rejected his oath to enforce the law faithfully, and threatened to assault the liberty and property of Americans he hates and fears.

Even though Ryan is a smart and humble and likeable man who was once a disciple of Ayn Rand on economics, as am I, the Republicans want the Bush days of war and spending beyond our means and assaults on civil liberties to return. The Bush years were bad for freedom; without them, we would not have had an Obama administration.

Which do you want?

NEXT: Poll: New Yorkers Divided on Stop and Frisk Along Racial Lines

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How is this Ryan character not in prison?

    1. Iknowright? WTF? Obama really is the clear choice here. The sooner we go over the cliff the sooner we can clean up the mess.

      1. Maybe. But it is pretty clear this Ryan character is pretty bad. He may push over even faster.

        1. I was always going to vote for Obama. Both because he is the only one that can save the country, and because he will destroy it much faster than the other guy.

          1. Economic annihilation is the only way to cleanse the cancer.

            Vote Obama.

          2. because he will destroy it much faster than the other guy.

            I hate to admit having entertained this thought for realz. Seems the train is so far down the tracks that the crash is inevitable and Obama simply gets us to it faster so some rebuilding can occur. Much as I want to see him lose, re-election might be best for the country in the long haul.

            1. Not to mention the fact that the train going over the cliff will otherwise be blamed on Romney and his evul embrace of teh free marketz.

              1. Obama’s been blaming four years of his own fuck ups on deregulation.

                What makes you think that he won’t be doing the same for four more years?

            2. Seems the train is so far down the tracks that the crash is inevitable and Obama simply gets us to it faster so some rebuilding can occur.

              Personally I’m not that sanguine about anything even remotely resembling a free country being rebuilt from the ruins, otherwise you might have point.

              When the country was first founded it was chock full of “rugged individualists” who were accustomed to relying on themselves and no one else. Now we’re a nation chock full of useless idiots who just want to be taken care of and get MOAR FREE SHIT. Not exactly a recipe for some kind of libertarian renaissance.

              1. Right on the money! (So to speak.) A revolution in this country with this apathetic, entitled populace leads to what? A new minimalist, fiscally responsible government? Unlikely!

                Just look at how the inevitable collapse is working out for Greece. Or Spain. People don’t care! They won’t give up their entitlements without a fight.

                1. Add in the fact that governments always finds scapegoats for big economic disasters, and you have a recipe for even worse statist government. Hell, look at the economic collapse four years ago and all the major news outlets had stories about the lack or regulation on banks, golden parachutes, Bernie Madoff, ect. Only a few outlets even considered the possibility that Fannie, Freddy, and the CRA had anything to do with the crash.

                  The only example of a country coming back from a socialist government is Chile, kinda. And Chile had to deal with Pinochet for fifteen years.

            3. Yeah, huh, so die sooner so you can come back as a zombie sooner?

          3. I was always going to vote for Obama. Both because he is the only one that can save the country, and because he will destroy it much faster than the other guy.

            I don’t know if your being serious or sarcastic, since I’ve heard versions of that sentiment for several years now, and like to fantasize about it myself.

            The problem is that it is a fantasy.

            Social collapse leads to tyranny, not liberty. I can think of dozens of examples of the former and none of the latter actually happening.

            1. But we get different tyrants. I’m shooting for Duke of New Jersey when the dust settles.

    2. For being smart, humble, and likeable?

      I agree that people are being hard on Ryan. I guess they are saying that even though he’s in the top ten percent of Republicans and has at least proposed some small cuts in entitlements, he is pretty bad, given he’s the best choice we have. And he really isn’t what he is being portrayed to be by both sides.

      Seriously, taking the shit sandwich that will be a Romney presidency and choosing what bread you want to eat it with does not change the fact that it is a shit sandwich.

      Romney/Paul will be marginally better than Obama in the short term. But they would also create huge increases in spending, regulation, and do little about defense spending, wars, and war on drugs.

      But just as they are already, this will be characterized as free market, deregulation, etc. and 4 years from now we will be back to an even worse choice. Just like with 8 years of Bush’s “deregulation and austerity” and now we have Obama as a remedy. In the long term I don’t think we will be well served by a Romney/Ryan ticket.

      Might be better to take the poison now all at once so people realize it’s poison.

      1. The fact that everybody has agreed to portray Paul Ryan as far right is really scary to me. The problem with Paul Ryan, economically, is that he’s a big government liberal. He happens not to like the gays, too.

        1. The fact that everybody has agreed to portray Paul Ryan as far right is really scary to me.

          It’s not to me. Because his winning anyway will cause serious anguish on the left and set the stage for real reformers in the future.

      2. He is a monster. A monster this Ryan.

        1. You know what Paul Ryan’s middle name is?
          Yup. Rand.
          Paul Rand Ryan.
          Everything is falling into place.

        2. C’mon, John. He is no monster.
          He is just a budget-busting, weapons-funding, freedom-limiting, country-invading, contraceptive-fearing neo-conservative.
          But he’s no monster.

      3. Might be better to take the poison now all at once so people realize it’s poison.

        Doesn’t work. Look how good the reputation of the New Deal is. Like it helped during the Great Depression. The economy was sick, had to give it medicine, could’ve been worse. How many think that was the cause of the illness, rather than a palliative that kept the illness from being worse?

        But it doesn’t stop there; people think World War 2 was the even more effective medicine that actually ended the depression!

      4. I had the same shit sandwich analogy in my head while reading the article, only mine was selecting the small half, or the big half.

    3. You have one note, and it’s a b-flat.

  2. There will never be a candidate that I like who finds his way on the ballot for the White House. At least not until I can get my name there. And even then, there are a few decisions from my past that really make me question my judgment and if I would be a good leader for this country, the Greatest Country on Earth.

    1. Pretty much. The country is headed for complete destruction and misery until it comes to its senses and makes me God Emperor Ceasar Augustus.

      1. Augustus is such a gay name.

        Hell, Ceasar is too for that matter.

        1. Then go German and call me Kaiser.

          1. The whole idea was to find something LESS gay, and you went to Germany?

            Come on man!

          2. That’s also the original Latin pronunciation.

        2. Augustus is such a gay name.

          Tell that to this guy.

          1. You mean the guy dressed as a cowboy?

            1. Wait till you see his chaps.

      2. Leto II might have something to say about that whole God Emperor thing.

        1. He should have seen it coming.

  3. Shorter Judge Napolitano ; We are fucked.

    You are correct Judge. We did it to ourselves.
    ‘The 99%’ are people who would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong, or hold their hand out for freebies and pretend nothing is wrong while the political class grows ever richer and more powerful.

    Yep, we are fucked.

  4. So who actually does less damage, Romney with a Republican Senate and House, or Obama with a Republican Senate and House?

    1. You’ve got it wrong. We want whatever combination will finally plunge the knife in up to the hilt, quick and as pain-free as possible. We also want whatever combination will lay the blame equally on both parties.

      So, Obama for president, and a Republican Congress. That’s how I’m voting this year.

      1. The knife has already been driven in to the hilt, repeatedly. All they are doing now is arguing over who gets to rape the corpse.

        1. I’ve felt like Congress and DC in general has been slowly pushing the knife deeper into the Republic to drain it of enough life and blood to feed themselves. The more they get, the more they want, and the deeper they have to push the knife in to satiate themselves.

          Plunge it in up the hilt, once and for all, and put the Republic out of its misery.

          1. I have to agree with Chris, the Republic already died some time ago.

      2. A Republican congress would likely thwart most of Obama’s programs, thereby delaying the ultimate melt-down. Although they wouldn’t have the balls to stop his SCOTUS nominees, which would basically fuck everyone good and hard. Tough choice.

        1. SCOTUS is a problem. But after watching Roberts sell the country out, there is no guarantee that Romney’s nominees wouldn’t do the same.

          Once they get on that court the power goes right to their head.

          1. Once they get on that court the power goes right to their head.

            Yes, and they tend to ‘grow’ by moving toward statism, influenced no doubt by thoughts of how they will be perceived by the media.

    2. Maybe Obama. If Romney wins, the Dems probably make a come back in Congress in 14 and we probably get President Hillary and a Dem Congress in 16. If Obama wins, the Dems are going to get killed in 14 and God only knows how badly he will continue to damage the Dem brand.

      I have never been convinced an Obama win would necessarily be a bad thing in the long run.

      1. There is something to be said for an Obama + Reublican congress chance at gridlock, despite the inevitable screeching of the media.

        1. Of course Obama is just ignoring Congress and doing what he wants.

          The problem Obama has is that he is running on nothing. He will have a hostile Congress and a mandate to do nothing. And he would be a lame duck from the first day in office.

          Either he would finally go full retard and start doing crazy shit to satisfy his supporters or he would not and totally alienate and demoralize the Dem base.

          1. Of course Obama is just ignoring Congress and doing what he wants.

            He does seem to think that he was elected King, rather than POTUS.

          2. exactly – Congress hasn’t exactly been constraining his power as of late. Sure, some of the big crazy stuff isn’t going to pass muster – like cap ‘n’ trade – but the “under the table” agency changes are a breathtaking power grab ala Chavez.

            1. Republican Senate and Congress, Obama loses the popular vote, but is put in office with the electoral vote, Bloomburg chokes to death, is probably our best likely scenario.

              Or flip it (but keep Bloomburg dying) and it would be about the same.

              Either party getting control of both the executive and legislature is a liberty-lover’s nightmare.

        2. Nah, that just prolongs it and allows people to escape accountability.

          Obama with a narrow majority in both house and senate so they can’t do more than catastrophic damage (is there something worse than catastrophic? Any suggestions?)

          But that way it will be clear that it was their policies that did not work. And it will be 8 years of Obama after 8 years of Bush doing similar things. That case may pull more weight with people.

          And none of this: “Oh, if only the stimulus had been bigger, or if only those obstructionist republicans had not stopped Obama’s master plan”

          Of course, then you need 20-30 years to dig out of a hole and it could always backfire and we end up with England of 1948. And I don’t see the country sticking with a consistent message for 20-30 years. But we have done it for 80 years with FDR and the standard interpretation of events so maybe we have to be in such dire straights before people catch on.

          1. To this day, the standard history is that FDR got the country out of the Great Depression. The economic record of communist and socialist countries is clear. Yet the standard bullshit about government “helping” the economy goes almost unquestioned.

            1. that’s the puzzler – the record of leftist countries is blatantly obvious but ignored. Ask a liberal to name a country that has spent or taxed its way to prosperity and they respond with something like “Bush, Fox, derp.”

        3. That’s my problem with the gridlock scenario: Obama don’t need no Congress to do a lot of what he wants.

          About the only thing I can see a Republican Congress stopping him from doing is raising taxes. I don’t think even Obama could do that by executive order.

          Would the Senate grow a spine and reject his SCOTUS nominees on principled/ideological grounds? I think the odds are quite low, so there’s not much there either.

          If we’re past the point of fiscal no-return (and I think we probably are), then some sort of epic catastrophe is inevitable. I frankly don’t much care what laundry the blinkered, entitled, corrupt incompetents happen to be wearing at the time.

      2. It’ll be interesting to see how the coming crisis plays out in the red/blue divide. It’s amazingly stark when when you look at even the bluest of blue states on a county-by-county basis. Rural vs. urban, with the suburbs as no man’s land?

        1. So Holder’s contempt might be the shot heard round the room?

        2. In Texas the suburbs are, fascinatingly to me, Tea Party Land. Look at who voted Ted Cruz most overwhelmingly – it was Houston’s and Dallas’s rich educated suburbanites. Redneck-land and the suburbs of Austin and San Antonio were far closer.

          1. Nothing especially surprising about that. Suburbanites probably shoulder about somewhere around 90 percent of the total tax burden in this country.

            1. It makes total sense from that perspective, but it shits all over the standard narrative about the Tea Party, doesn’t it? The votes demanding fiscal sanity are geologists, not trailer-park welfare kings.

          2. maybe it finally dawned on this educated suburbanites that they are the “them” that Obama keeps talking about. And they figured that the traditional Reds are not much better.

            1. I hope that’s what it is.

      3. I have never been convinced an Obama win would necessarily be a bad thing in the long run.

        I generally agree, but the only chance to repeal* Obamacare is with Romney as president. And to me that makes the difference in whom I want to see win. Well that and Obama turning into a full on retarded socialist in the last six months.

        *Even if the chance is only 30-40% with Romney it’s 0% with Obama.

        1. I agree with that assessment of odds. Also, it’s possible that with Romney and a Republican Congress we could get partial repeal, or amendments that tend to strangle it, albeit wastefully.

    3. Romney with a Republican Senate y House have a chance to repeal Obamacare, no other combination does. There’d also be too much public pressure for a Republican senate not to confirm some Obama Sup. Ct. appointee, even if they play good judge, bad judge.

  5. Just when you thought it was safe to vote again, Bush manages to get back on the ballot.

  6. There’s still a chance for America in November. He’s a former two-term Governor of New Mexico who gave his state a billion-dollar surplas and reduced the size of the government. A man who, if elected President, would probably make Judge Napolitano his Attorney General.

      1. Kodos? He was the villain in an old Star Trek episode, wasn’t he? I think he had a bunch of colonists put to death because there wasn’t enough food.

        1. I think Restoras is referring to this.

  7. The differences between the Democratic and Republican parties are just the small stuff on the margins. Their core beliefs are the same: a powerful central government that can do whatever its current owners wish.

    And when one party gets into power it doesn’t undo what the other party did in its turn; they simply slap on another layer of their own devising, giving us a “ratchet effect”.

    1. That’s because they reflect partly popular sentiment, partly media-academic sentiment, and partly the tendencies that public choice theory predicts. It’s not like they’re the engine driving the vehicle.

  8. So we’re just going to be comparing Obama to the Republican VP nominee again? You do know that Romney is at the top of the ticket and will be setting policy, right? Don’t get me wrong; I don’t care for Romney or anything he stands for. However, historically speaking, there is very little reason to worry about the VP choice. We should be mocking Obama as he tries to run against Ryan, like he did Palin, not joining him.

    1. It is certainly more fun to compare the VP candidates to each other.…..n_ryan.jpg

      1. 1 LOL for you, sir.

  9. Barry has been touting his “Plan” for the budget. OK. Fine. I like plans. Am I’m always a bit curious what the Messiah is up to. So today I actually visited the URL.

    So what is the grand plan? Bullet points. MOTHERFUCKING BULLET POINTS. If fucktard Democrats really think that this is a “Plan”, then no wonder we’re doomed.

    1. I see what you mean. His campaign could just as well have adopted Google’s motto, “Don’t be evil.” You look in vain for links to the details.

  10. I’m not gonna lie, my hatred for Obama makes Romney/Ryan almost seem palatable. “Almost” being the operative word, or course.

    I think I’ll just vote for Gary Johnson so I can absolve myself of any responsibility for the eventual winner’s ruinous actions.

    1. unfortunately, you do not get to absolve yourself of the consequences.

      1. You’re right. But there’s jack shit I can do about that no matter who I vote for. God bless America!

  11. I am voting for Obama and all Democrats under the premise alleged heretofore, namely, I want to get over the cliff as soon as possible. Cuz got to tell you, I am tired of hearing about it. I remember when Reagen was president and they talked about his unprecedented deficits and how they added to the debt and how it was going to bankrupt the nation. Well, god damn it, when? I am sure that the “great economic collapse” meme is even older than that.

    I’m sick of hearing about the collapse and I am sick of having my rights ever so incrementally being taken away. Jesus, they really have TSA at fucking railroad stations? Where the fuck can you drive a train? I know things are getting more fucked up, but it could still take a couple of decades for all this shit like quantitative easing to roost.

    I’m sick of pigs, of all stripes (to interweave metaphors) too.

  12. Romney and Ryan Would Return Us to the Bush Years

    Did we ever leave the Bush years?

    Which do you want?

    None of the above.

    If the only choices on the ballot were Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden I’d just stay home. If someone held a gun to my head to try and force me to choose, I’d disarm him and pistol whip the fuck out of him with his own gun (or at least try to, even if I get shot at least I went down fighting).

  13. Did we ever really leave the Bush years?

    Which do you want?

    None of the above. If the only choices were Romney/ Ryan or Obama/ Biden, I’d just stay home. And if someone held a gun to my head to force me to choose, I’d disarm him and pistol whip the fuck out of him with his own gun (or at least try to, even if I get shot at least I went down fighting.)

    Oh, and fuck you squirrels for marking this as spam the first time I tried to post while still allowing anon-bot to get through. Fuckers.

  14. Sounds like one heck of a plan to me dude, hit it.

  15. Why should I trust the constitutional interpretation of a FOX fat man whose first paragraph contains at least one lie and one bout of hysteria?

    1. OTOH, why should you trust [insert any MSNBC host] over the “FOX fat man”?

      I’ll give him this much, though: He’s half-right. We don’t need to return to Bush OR Obama.

      1. Hold on… after re-reading said first paragraph, I’m hard-pressed to find the lie or the hysteria. “…a Republican team that wants to return to Bush-style big government” certainly is neither.

    2. That personal danger is the millions of “illegal immigrants” he’s deported (more than shitty Bush) and the escalated drug war and fucking with dispensaries set up under legal state laws (more so than shitty bush did) and the idea that I should be forced to pay for insurance (which even the rethuglicans were smart enough to shitcan).

  16. Good for a laff or two:…..r=Politics

    First laff came from reading the phrase “Paul Ryan’s Libertarianism”. What a fuckin’ knee-slapper.

    1. Another knee-slapper:…..r=Politics

  17. Wait, wait… THIS one, is fuckin’ funny!…..f=politics

  18. I’ll take the less bad any day. Any other answer to your Q is perverse.

    There’s a reason politicians tend toward the center, and unfortunately the center is not a place we like. So move it. But you won’t move it by looking for a choice that’s already been soundly rejected and will continue to be.

    1. So your solution is to vote republican?

      Why not at least stay home and say “Fuck you two party system!”?

  19. Dubya was a massive disappointment to me. I was hoping for a permanent flat tax, I’m still paying the AMT. Wanted smaller government, instead we got expanded drug coverage for oldsters and bigger government. Etc…

    But, those are starting to look like the good old days compared to today.

  20. Hey I don’t know if anyone’s heard this yet, but Ryan voted for nearly every request to raise the debt ceiling during his 14 years in Congress. He voted for TARP, the GM bailout, Medicare Part D and most of the recent stimulus giveaways. He also voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Patriot Act, and the NDAA. Just thought I’d share that in case this has slipped through the cracks.

    1. The Bush loyalists here love that about him.

  21. Romeny and Ryan would take us back to the Bush era with a snap of a finger….. even though the public’s opinion on government spending (especially Obamacare) is at its lowest since who knows when. The dem controlled senate and some of the tea party flavored Republicans in the house would have no incentive to stop Romney from reckless spending, I’m sure. And President Romney will send us to “another war” just for fun, because the backlash over rush to previous war and public’s exhaustion over our military involvement just never happened. He’ll do all that because he’s unconcerned about re election.

    I’m not ambivalent about supporting Romney at all, because my expectation from him is pretty low, and that’s true for most of his supporters. Unseat Obama, repeal Obamacare, allow obamnesty to expire and produce real immigration reform (he’s centrist, isn’t he?), and if I’m lucky, maybe signing welfare reform and some cuts proposed by Republicans like Rand Paul.

    If you want to legalize drugs, vaporize the department of education, and expand right to work states, your fight still continues in other arenas.

    1. If you don’t think that Obama will send us to “another war” just for fun, you haven’t been paying attention.

  22. Could Romney/Ryan provide a tad bit of business optimism and growth? Enough to cause the economy/jobs to start to pick back up? A little growth goes a long way. Or are they too much like Bush/Obama, and haven’t learned a thing, and are in no way capable of respecting markets?

    And did anyone ever determine that Fox Business News killed off the Judge’s Freedom Watch show because he spent 80% of the program talking up a presidential candidate named Ron Paul? I always wondered….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.