Charlie Rose: Tell Me Why You Think the Results of This Election Were As They Are
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Charlie Rose - 1 - 11/16/2010 ALL EXCERPTS MUST CREDIT “CHARLIE ROSE”. Charlie Rose: Tell me why you think the results of this election were as they are. Was it [spelled phonetically] in postmortem analysis produced the results we see? Paul Ryan: It wasn't a valediction of Republicans. And we shouldn't disguise that. What I see was a repudiation of the direction the president and his party took the country. I just look at Wisconsin. Wisconsin won for Barack Obama by 13 points in 2008. Wisconsin, the state legislature was deeply controlled by Democrats. Five of the eight Congressional delegation were Democrats. And in Wisconsin we took the state legislature. Beatrice [spelled phonetically] Feingold took the governor and took two Congressional seats. Charlie Rose: Well, was there a specific issue having to do with spending, was there a specific issue having to do with healthcare? Paul Ryan: It was everything. It was everything. Healthcare was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the direction the country has been taken. What I think it was is just all of the spending, all of the borrowing, all of the economics, it was not focused on jobs, the stimulus, everything stacked on top of each other gave people a sense that the government has become untethered toward our basically core founding principles and that we were running on an agenda that was unsustainable, borrowing, taxes, debt, deficits, and in our area where it's really a small business driven economy, the uncertainty was killing us. And so it's all this uncertainty from government which just gave us this tsunami of an election and so really I see this was -- I mean, statistically speaking it was the greatest repudiation in 72 years of a president in power. Now, the question is, is does the president and his party think they have a marketing problem or do they really realize that they have a substance and an ideological problem. And I don't know what the answer to that question is. Charlie Rose: And how will you find out the answer? Paul Ryan: Time, I mean, the way I hope this goes is the President will say, “All right, I agree with you Republicans on A, B, and C, so let's work together on those things, but on X, Y, and Z I don't agree with you, and on those issues we owe it to the country to give them a real choice, real alternatives, how we would do things differently, where we would take the country.” There's nothing short of debating what America's going to be for the next century. I mean, we're in a time in history where we're not talking small ball anymore. This is not school uniforms or prescription drugs. This is, you know, debt crisis, the economy. You know, is America going to be the leader in the 21st century or not? Are we going to have what I would call an opportunity society with this social safety net? Or Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #710 Arlington, VA 22203 Charlie Rose - 2 - 11/16/2010 are we going to go over and become a social democracy, a cradle to grave welfare state like a European kind of society? And the difference in the next few years will determine what that outcome will be. Charlie Rose: Will it be different do you think in terms of the president if he is looking to and thinking about the 2012 election? Paul Ryan: It will. If he's thinking 2012, he's thinking more contrast. He's thinking -- here's the problem that -- most of us don't know the president very well. So I always try to keep an open mind on these things as to what the approach of a person's going to be, but when he calls us "enemies," when he uses demagogic political rhetoric in the campaigns season -- you got to remember the campaign rhetoric in 2008 was very different than the campaign rhetoric in 2010. And in 2010 it gives us the impression that we're seen as enemies -- he goes to our districts and says that Republicans want the economy to fail so he fails politically, and that kind of talk, all these straw men and counterfactual arguments, does not make it easy to cooperate and come together on the big issues of the day. Charlie Rose: But you'll grant me that, that's happened on both sides. [unintelligible] [talking simultaneously] Paul Ryan: Absolutely, I will grant you that. We don't have halos over our head either on this stuff. I think the big question of the day though is what is the vision for the country, and I do believe that the president is a fairly ideological guy. And I think his ideology -- Charlie Rose: Even though his friends and colleagues say he's essentially a pragmatic centrist? Paul Ryan: His rhetoric doesn't show that. His policies don't show that. And his policies are in place right now so I don't see that, and plus they're reelecting the same Congressional leadership that they had in the last two years. So it's difficult to see a strong course correction. Triangulation, my guess, will be the exception, not the rule. Hopefully we can make a difference on a few things. And we got to get some things done. We can't do nothing for the next two years. Charlie Rose: Let's talk about things that might get done. You're a member of the Bipartisan Deficit Commission. Paul Ryan: Right. Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #710 Arlington, VA 22203 Charlie Rose - 3 - 11/16/2010 Charlie Rose: What do you think of what we now know about it, and what’s going to happen between now and December 1 and then into the future? Paul Ryan: All right, so first of all I think we should commend Erskine Bowles [spelled phonetically] and Allen Simpson [spelled phonetically] for putting a plan on the table. I mean, as the person who had the only plan out there for a number of years, I’m really happy somebody else put something on the table so we could start talking about. Charlie Rose: Exactly. And well in fact the president complimented you for having a plan. Paul Ryan: He, did, he did, and so it’s a serious and impressive plan what Erskine and Allen did. It’s just the two chairs, put that out there, they themselves, the rest of the people weren’t involved in that. There’s some things in it I like, there’s some things in it I don’t like, but getting something passed through Congress by December 1 into law isn’t going to happen. Just logistically speaking it’s pretty much impossible, the way the Senate works and the way procedures work, that you're not going to get some big bargain passed into law in this lame duck session, that's just not going to happen. And I don't mean that from a partisan standpoint. I mean that just from a logistical standpoint. So the question is, is will this Commission advance some ideas that then can be picked up by the next Congress to be advanced. And that's my hope. Charlie Rose: So the point of the Commission is to start the debate. Paul Ryan: Yeah, I think that's -- Charlie Rose: [unintelligible] information we now know. Paul Ryan: I think that's what's going to become the point of the Commission. The original idea of the Commission was to actually have a plan and pass into lame duck. That's just not really feasible from a logistical standpoint. I don't think you can write legislation or score it fast enough, let alone get through all the hurdles in the Senate, to pass something even if you could get 14 of the 18 Commissioners to vote for something. Charlie Rose: And what about the up and down vote? Paul Ryan: Prepared by National Capitol Contracting 200 N. Glebe Rd., #710 Arlington, VA 22203 Charlie Rose - 4 - 11/16/2010 That's what I don't think you're going to have. I don't think you're going to have that. Charlie Rose: When you look at what the Commission said so far, what those two co-chairs said, what you like and don't like, you -- Paul Ryan: Well, okay so what I like is the fact that you have the president's people that he put in charge of this, Erskine Bowles who's a great very conscientious Democrat saying that for America to be competitive in the 21st century we need to lower tax rates, we need a lower corporate rate, we need a territorial tax system which is very important for our competitiveness, and to lower tax rates on individuals. So they're basically talking about broadening the tax base, lowering the rates. That's good. They're also going after spending. Now, there's some things I would do and some things I wouldn't do but they're going after spending. What they didn't do in this plan which I think was a mistake is they didn't go after fixing healthcare. They pretty much skirted it on the edge which -- Charlie Rose: Why not? Paul Ryan: Because I think they wanted to accept the premise of Obama-care. They wanted to accept the structure and the architecture of Obama-care which obviously I have a huge problem with.