Astroturfing a non-existent “backlash” against Paul Ryan

As Republicans in Congress use the Easter break to make their case for Paul Ryan’s entitlement reform to the American people, liberals would love it if constituents would start “raucous” town-hall meetings, a la the anti-Obamacare Tea Party events that took place during the summer of 2009.

Yes they would absolutely if that would happen.  Too bad for them, because it isn’t:

How did things go for Republicans in their initial defense of the Ryan budget?  Well, consider the intensity of the Left’s desire for an anti-GOP, anti-Ryan, “Town Hall Backlash” narrative. And then consider the relatively small number of “incidents” reported in the news, the sensational headlines that were never written.  […]

It might be too soon to say Republicans are winning the budget debate, but they definitely aren’t losing it, and that’s a real slap in the face for liberals who were absolutely convinced that Americans would never accept a plan as bold as Ryan’s.

Meanwhile, look at this “outrage” at Paul Ryan’s most recent town-hall (via):

These people are outraged I say.  Outraged!

Why we need entitlement reform

Ed Morrissey nails it:

When programs like Social Security and Medicare first began, most Americans weren’t expected to live long enough to draw benefits for more than a couple of years.  In the fifty years since Medicare began, we have lowered the age of eligibility and massively expanded benefits.  Not only do we have more people entering the system thanks to the Baby Boom of the postwar years, but thanks to better health, they’re staying in the program for at least fifteen years at a time.

Meanwhile, population growth has slowed in the eighty years since the start of Social Security and fifty since Medicare.  Instead of having worker-to-enrollee ratios of 16-1, we’re rapidly approaching 2-1, which turns the entitlement structure into a teetering Ponzi scheme.

And let’s also be clear about one thing–this is exactly what Democrats want.  Nothing gets millions of voters to the polls to pull the lever for Democrats quicker than promising the continuation of the current state of affairs.  Democrats and the Obama administration have shown no desire at all to seriously address the question of reforms, nor our government’s fiscal emergency.

Americans will eventually have a choice–continue biting on the Democrats promises of an ever-increasing entitlement state, or trying to avert disaster.

Voting present on the Federal budget

As this Wall Street Journal piece notes, President Obama has submitted a budget just for the sake of submitting a budget.  All of the talk these past few months about “serious” decisions on the budget reforms, the deficit, entitlement reforms, etc. are pretty much ignored.  A bi-partisan deficit commission?  Is there any doubt now that this was nothing but fluff?

Andrew Stiles:

Needless to say, Obama has set a low bar for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) as he crafts the GOP’s budgetary rebuttal. Ryan has scheduled a series of hearings next week to review the president’s budget and hear testimony from OMB Director Jacob Lew and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Expect a thorough grilling, in particular as to why the White House refused to touch entitlements. “If the president’s budget ignores [entitlement] programs, that means he is abdicating leadership on dealing with the deficit,” Ryan said on Fox New Sunday. “Presidents are elected to lead, not to punt, and this president has been punting.”

In all fairness, the WSJ piece points out that Republicans are not exactly lighting it up when it comes to addressing entitlement reform.  But that’s really not the point. 

In 2008, Obama, and by extension, the Democrats, were elected because they were considered the new grown-ups in Washington.  Remember all the talk about winning elections and cars in ditches and all that nonsense?   Yeah, about that.

The White House is more than happy for Republicans to come out and actually make the difficult decisions, and pay the political price for them.