Because he's doing everything he can to sell out the principles he once claimed to stand upon to get the favor of the GOP establishment.
First, Ryan has sold out on amnesty for illegal aliens. Now, the once proud budget cutter has joined the RINO establishment in being so spooked out of possible future government shut downs he's selling out on cutting our budget, by striking a deal with far-Left Senator Patty "Osama Mama" Murray of Washington that gets rid of the sequester and adds new spending. Judging on e-mails I received from grassroots groups yesterday, there is universal opposition to it, and rightfully so.
Ryan got an earful from Mark Levin last night.
Talk show host Mark Levin told House Budget Committee Chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that the budget deal announced today with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) was a "Mickey Mouse" deal, tinkering at the margins of the federal budget, undoing the sequester and exchanging immediate spending increases for future spending cuts."Elections have conesquences?" So, Ryan has just joined the GOP Surrender Caucus for one reason. There is no leadership in the party that is willing to go to the American people and make the case for their plan and rally support. Instead, these cowardly RINOs are all petrified of what the big, bad, Obama Lapdog Media will say about them.
Ryan countered that "elections have consequences," and that many members of the Republican caucus were worried that the next tranche of sequester cuts would hit the military exclusively. He explained that there would be a net savings of $23 billion after $62 billion in new spending was offset by $85 billion in long-term cuts.
He added that the $85 billion would be a change in mandatory spending, as opposed to discretionary spending, noting that many of the savings would come from federal employees contributing more towards their pensions. Levin countered that even changes in "mandatory" spending could be undone easily by a future Congress.
The Budget Control Act that put the sequester in place, Levin argued, had also been touted as a "permanent" deal. Ryan disagreed, while agreeing that the new deal would not solve the government's overall fiscal problems. It would be impossible to do more, he said, while Obama was president: "Elections have consequences."
Ryan also hinted at the political motivation for the deal: the GOP did not have the stomach to endure another government shutdown, and would prefer to focus on Obamacare instead. Levin responded that it was possible to focus on both spending and Obamacare, and that "nothing" was being done about Obamacare anyway.
And we're supposed to vote for them? What good is "standing the line" when none of these guys who are supposed to represent us are willing to do it, but are too willing to make deals for the sake of appearing "bipartisan"?
Erick Erickson has more: BOHICA Act of 2013:
Amazing how much can change in a month. Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray have decided to give up the last thing the GOP was fighting for — spending restraint. “Don’t worry,” Paul Ryan says with his boyish charm designed to induce sweats and heart palpitations among conservatives, “it’s only a little less restrained.”
The budget deal puts discretionary spending over $1 trillion, which is higher than the sequestration deal of 2011, which was at $967. This is, in fact, a spending increase.
It funds Obamacare.
It does not impact the national debt. It does not reform entitlements.
And it raises taxes, but with the more acceptable euphemism of “user fees”, i.e. it only raises taxes on people who go through airport TSA checkpoints. For those of you who dispute this, let me put it this way, has the cost of the TSA grabbing our junk gone up? Will the TSA will be able to grab more junk per hour with the added revenue?
By the way, if this money is going to the TSA, I hope they’ll kindly be slightly more honest and refer to “abuser fees” instead of “user fees” if they aren’t going to honest and call this a tax increase.
So it raises spending, it raises taxes … errr … “user fees”, and it funds Obamacare. It’s the budgetary equivalent of being only a little big pregnant.
But then that’s the problem with Paul Ryan. In his run of the mill voting record, there is no question Paul Ryan is a conservative. It’s just he sees fit to lose his conservative bona fides when high profile votes are on the line. So his friends can cast aspersions on those who suggest he might not be what he appears while he goes on to prove he is not what he appears to be in these big votes.
...But by God, we kept the Democrats from extending unemployment insurance. Some victory that is!
Yesterday, the Democrats began using the nuclear option in the Senate to confirm judges. Today, Republicans will help them increase spending and taxes . . . errrr . . . abuser fees.
Last month Republicans bailed on the Obamacare fight and declared sequestration their line in the sand. Now they are saying they’ll bail on sequestration, but they’ll hold the line on unemployment benefits.
Why should we believe them anymore? Is it any wonder that poll after poll shows Republican voters hate their Republican congressmen and Senators?There's a big difference between the last two GOP Vice Presidential candidates whom the media liked to go after. Sarah Palin has held true to her conservative principles, while Paul Ryan is only willing to give them lip-service, selling out when it becomes expedient for him.
Bend over America, here it comes again.