The Man with the Plan--Chairman Ryan

Chairman Ryan's supporters call his plan for tax "reform" "brave." How is it brave for a politician to promise huge tax cuts for everyone (everyone wealthy at least) without saying just which loopholes he'd eliminate to offset those tax cuts?

He says "Trust me" instead of saying what he'd do.

Really? Given his voting record during the Bush II administration, absent specifics what I can trust is that he'll do the same now as he did then: vote for huge tax cuts paid for by borrowing. That's what Republicans do: borrow and spend. The Democrats may be profligate but at least they're honest about their policies.

Because Ryan's record shows that he's no deficit hawk. Not when a Republican's in the White House he isn't. Has he experienced some kind of conversion on the road to Damascus? Or is it more of the same-old, same-old: crying for reform while out of office, then it's "let the good times roll" for the party's patrons as soon as the foxes are back in the henhouse.

He's the "man with the plan" all right. The main part of which is the one he won't share with us.

Lastly, readers should realize this isn't an election about President Obama's policies vs. Governor Romney's rubber stamp of Ryan's policies.

It's about whether the nation will have a Republican-dominated Congress, Executive and Judiciary branch, or a Republican-dominate Congress and Judiciary branch with the check of a Democratic executive branch.

Meaning if President Obama wins re-election, virtually none of his domestic policies will be enacted, because Congress writes and passes legislation--not the President. This isn't a parliamentary system where the winning party holds all the cards. It's a system with sand in the gears designed into the system.

Now you may want a Republican trifecta if you believe that the last time we had this--from 2000 to 2010--that our government paid as it went, instituted sound fiscal reforms, paid for its wars instead of sending the bill to the next generation, and by the end of that period had the average American in a better economic position than at the beginning.

If that's so, vote for another Republican trifecta. If that's not so, vote for one branch of government being of the other party, so as to reign in the other party's total inability to govern itself by its own stated principles.

This has nothing to do with Governor Romney's qualification--though by choosing Ryan he's made it clear that he doesn't believe a business background is a relevant qualification. It has to do with whether you believe either party, when it controls all three branches, can resist the urge for self-dealing and prioritizing consolidating power over what we sent them all there to do.

Where are the jobs?

Chairman Ryan's opening salvo as VP candidate was to tell voters to ask President Obama "Where are the jobs?"

What he didn't say--but obviously wanted to think--were these propositions:

1. That America's President is responsible for employment in America--not Congress, not world economic events like the Euro crisis, not events in the states (many controlled by Republican legislatures and governors, though those are preoccupied with vote suppression and banning abortion instead of working on the economy), not the courts. So apparently the Republicans believe the American President is actually a king with term limits, and nothing the Republicans in the Senate have to block Presidential initiatives and appointments and Democratic legislation has had the slightest effect on joblessness.

2. That when a president takes office, nothing the previous administration and Congress did has any effect on joblessness during the current president's term. The idea that the Republicans handed the Democrats a problem so huge it would take 20 years to solve, then gave the Democrats a year to do so--while fighting the Democrats' efforts every inch of the way? Inconceivable, to quote one of my favorite characters from Princess Bride.

3. That world events outside the control of any American president or legislature have no effect whatsoever on joblessness in this country.

4. That the current level of joblessness isn't a vast improvement on what it would be if the Republicans had won the last election. You're supposed to compare current joblessness with the lowest rate of unemployment at the height of the last boom, not with what the actual alternatives are now during the recession and deficit the Republicans handed President Obama.

5. That we actually have a parliamentary system, in which the country's chief executive is always a member of the party with a majority in congress, without our Senate's rules that let a minority throw sand in the gears of majority efforts. In such a system the country's chief executive and his or her party can ram through whatever legislation they want; they OWN the government and they're responsible for what happens in the country (always with the proviso that even in parliamentary systems a new government's first hand is the one the other side dealt them coming in, and no nation is an island (so to speak).

In our system the president has a huge bully pulpit and considerable leeway in foreign affairs, but domestically he's actually more like Administrator in Chief than a parliamentary system's Prime Minister. Even when the president's party has a majority in both houses of Congress, it's still nearly impossible to make anything happen or get anyone appointed unless the president's party has not just a majority in the Senate but over 60 votes--and even then they can be daunted by ability of the Republican Party to mount lavishly financed hits on any Congressman at any time--like just before an election, too late to mount a counterattack.

My advice: turn over the Republican's rocks and shine a flashlight on what's scurrying around in the dark.

Governor Romney says his business background irrelevant

That's right. According to Governor Romney, his business background is not an important qualification for being President of the United States. Of course this isn't his words. It's his actions. And don't actions speak louder than words?

The action is his choice of Vice President: a 42 year old man with exactly zero business experience--none whatsoever.

So unless you believe that Mitt Romney is immortal and invincible, and if you believe that the Vice President's constitutional job description is "Takes over if the President is killed or incapacitated," then you must agree that the traits and background needed for the job of Vice President are exactly the same as for President.

Which means you must base a vote for President Obama or Governor Romney on their experience in government--Romney as, in his words, the "severely conservative" governor of Massachusetts for one term vs. President Obama's experience in a state legislature, in the national legislature, and as President of the United States, plus Chairman Ryan for his long service in the House of Representatives, plus Vice President Biden for his long service in Congress plus his experience as Vice President of the United States/

Of course there are other relevant things--policy positions, strategic vision, personal character, life story, spouse, education, demonstrated understanding of the needs and concerns of most Americans, mastery of foreign policy issues and tactics, international experience.

Just not business experience. I'd thought it had some relevance myself, but Governor Romney overruled me this weekend with his choice of Chairman Ryan.