Paul Ryan State Of The Union Response: Speech Addresses Spending, Health Care & More

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) stepped up to the plate on Tuesday night to deliver the official Republican response to President Barack Obama's' State of the Union speech.

Ryan will be the point man in the new House GOP majority's drive to rein in spending and bring the budget closer to balance. Tuesday's speech was the highest profile assignment yet for a wonky former congressional staff aide who has evolved into one of his party's brightest stars.

Ryan is best known for a controversial budget plan brimming with politically unpopular ideas like gradually turning Medicare into a voucher program, curbing Social Security benefits and allowing younger workers to divert Social Security taxes into private accounts. He says such tough steps are needed, given intractable budget deficits that threaten America's prosperity.

Below, Ryan's prepared remarks released prior to the president's speech:

Click here for live coverage of the 2011 State of the Union.

Good evening. I'm Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin - and Chairman here at the House Budget Committee. President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber. Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen. What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us. Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general - and on our deficit and debt in particular. He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending. In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress's own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs. The reason is simple. A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it's imperative. Here's why. We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead. On this current path, when my three children - who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old - are raising their own children, the Federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay. No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country. Frankly, it's one of my greatest concerns as a parent - and I know many of you feel the same way. *****

Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.

There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.

Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.

The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for domestic government agencies - an 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus.

All of this new government spending was sold as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.

Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.

What we already know about the President's health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree - and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.

Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.

Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President's law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.

Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.

We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.

*****

And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.

Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified - especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.

In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year - in an unprecedented failure- Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.

*****

We owe you a better choice and a different vision.

Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you - to show you how we intend to do things differently ... how we will cut spending to get the debt down... help create jobs and prosperity ... and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.

These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they're also about the purpose of government.

So I'd like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.

They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.

*****

We believe government's role is both vital and limited - to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders... to protect innocent life... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.

We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.

We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.

*****

Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.

*****

Whether sold as "stimulus" or repackaged as "investment," their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.

And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten - along with record deficits and debt - to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.

We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.

*****

Our nation is approaching a tipping point.

We are at a moment, where if government's growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America's best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked - and it won't work now.

We need to chart a new course.

*****

Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time... but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.

Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn't act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.

Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.

*****

Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the "central ideas" of the Republic.

We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative - not political clout - determines who succeeds.

Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise - but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.

Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.

*****

We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation - not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.

Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.

*****

These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.

And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.

Thank you and good night.

Comments

[David Seith]

01:21 PM on 01/28/2011

Representative Paul warned that America “will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”

These remarks resurface old stereotypes that have never been less accurate.

Let’s set the record straight.

1. Safety net spending increased through the early 1990s and has remained fairly stable since, but within this overall allocation, means-tested expenditures have shifted from cash assistance entitlements to refundable tax credits, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

2. Resources have been reallocated from the non-working poor to the working-poor and from the deep-poor (those with incomes < 50 percent of the fpl) to the near-poor (those with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the fpl).

We propose a different vision.

1. First, the safety net should guarantee to meet children’s essential needs for food, shelter, and healthcare, whether or not their parents work.

2. Second, if the safety net continues to demand that low-income parents work, then: (a) policymakers must make work work for single-parents; (b) policymakers must ensure that work pays enough to support a family; (c) policymakers must enable non-custodial fathers to meet their child support obligations.

3. Third, it is essential to make education and training investments to help to prevent the intergenerational transmission of poverty.

4. Fourth, since supply-side policies are necessarily reactive and subsidiary, policymakers should implement demand-side strategies to create good paying jobs with opportunities for advancement.

[oilcan821]

08:51 AM on 01/27/2011

oh, yeah-doesn't mis-rep. ryan have gov't. run health care? let that sorryA%&#@# buy his own healthcare for him and his family!!!

[wrh2]

07:10 AM on 01/27/2011

Turn the USA into Mexico. Mining+farm corporation's in charge, dirt roads, mud huts.
Is it your dream tea party?

[faultroy]

10:51 PM on 01/26/2011

Ryan was being obtuse when talking about the problems Obama was given. What he should have mentioned is the fact that Democrats took the majority because Repubs did exactly the same thing Dems have been doing for the past 50 years. He should have also mentioned that he and all repubs owed pres Obama a sincere debt of gratitude, since it forced Repubs to either become truly fiscally conservative or become the third party behind a new independent movement started by the TEA party. What repubs will be doing is hitting public sector jobs hard and making them fall in line with private sector jobs. Expect teachers unions to be busted along with government unions as well. No more free rides for Universities. There will no doubt be plenty of whining, crying and gnashing of teeth. And no, Wall Street and the rich will only profit. We will go back to a true republican philosophy of survival of the fitest. If you can't keep up, you will starve and die.

[JudgeMoonbox]

09:48 PM on 01/26/2011

"Ryan... promised to repeal "Obamacare" and replace it with "fiscally responsible patient-centered reform," but didn't say word one about what it would entail." -Joan Walsh, http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/

Does "patient centered" mean where people can game the system by not paying until they get sick? Or does it mean we are so concerned about the patients' liberty that we allow the insurance company to deny them coverage because of "pre-existing conditions?"

[jhoughton1]

09:24 PM on 01/26/2011

And by the way, Republicans: if you ever do develop something that looks like an actual plan to cut "waste" out of government and health care, just remember -- every bit of that waste is someone's job. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut waste, but if you don't think cutting waste is a "job-killer" then you really don't understand economics and should let go of the levers of government.

[JudgeMoonbox]

09:08 PM on 01/26/2011

Imagine someone running for mayor of some city, saying that the highway department didn't need more money for maintainance, the problem was too many politicians were promising to fix the potholes. Why do you never hear that?

The answer is, it's too obvious. The Republicans don't want voters to think of what they vote people into office to do, they must keep discussions about taxes separate from the actual programs that governments spend money on.

Back in the 1990s, our taxes were higher, and we were able to bring unemployment down to 4%. Supply Side economists have not explained how such would be possible if the economy was overtaxed, nor did they accept that the tax increases under George Aitch Bush and Bill Clinton were on the safe side of the Laffer Curve. Instead, they resorted to the absurd position that ANY tax cut would bring in more revenue--as if abolishing taxes completely would result in so much money just drifting into the government's nets that we wouldn't know what to do with it all.

Ryan and the other Republicans weren't so concerned about the government's debts when McConnell was holding unemployment funding hostage to extending George Dubya Bush's elitist tax cuts. His view of the debt changes with the political correctness by Republican standards of the measure under discussion to increase or reduce the deficit.

[D-V-H]

07:44 PM on 01/26/2011

Ryan rails about deficits, but I didn't see a single Republican clap when Obama talked about cutting big oil subsidies or unnecessary defense spending.

Hypocrite, heal thyself!!!

[R Davis]

07:04 PM on 01/26/2011

Paul Ryan wants to balance the budget by cutting spending. I don't remember any Republicans talking about balancing the budget when billions of dollars that was earmarked for Iraq just vanished. No one could account for where it went. Or the outrageous spending to contractors hired to go to Iraq and rebuild infrastructure. Which we never got our money's worth.

The Republicans talk about cutting spending on health care but the don't talk about how they are going to make sure people have health care. Without health care people die prematurely. So, if the Republican party is going to just let them die how is that different from the death panels that Sarah Palin seems so upset about? If that is their plan why won't they be honest and just say we can't afford to give everyone health care? Then they would give up the right to whine about Death Panels.

[BigLeftbowski]

09:11 PM on 01/26/2011

Silly liberal -wars are free for the GOP.

[faultroy]

11:06 PM on 01/26/2011

Your point is well taken, but you fail to mention the fact that for the past 50 years we have had a liberal ideology that proposed that government had the solutions. But the record shows that the more we spend, the less we get. We spend trillions on education and statistically the student scores have been flat at best for the past 30 years. We continue to fall further behind other countries--even developing countries like China and India. It is too late for liberals to whine about cuts. Liberals weren't complaining when we kept putting billions into programs that clearly never worked. And contrary to your comments, conservatives had been complaining all along about the billions in spending--that is why Congress continues to have some of the lowest approval ratings and has had for quite some time. And that is why the TEA party was created--dissatisfaction with both parties. We're now looking at survival and no one really gives a damn about the poor and those that cannot fend for themselves. They'll either cowboy up or die--their choice.

[Seymoreclearly]

06:09 PM on 01/27/2011

I seriously doubt the liberal ideology is the one that got us into such a mess. It's the hallmark of American conservatives to propose war as a solution to our fiscal problems. Reagan wanted to go to war in Central America, and Congress wouldn't let him. So he & Ollie North concocted an end-around game to get us involved anyway.

After that, it was George Herbert Walker Bush who gave us Operation Desert Storm. Our involvement in Afghanistan was an extension of ODS. After that, it was GWB who gave us Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The ideologies on either side of the aisle seem to be thus: use taxpayer dollars for domestic social programs (Dems) , or....dole it out to Big Business and especially the military-industrial complex (Repubs).

I don't know about you, but I do give a damn about the poor & those who can't fend for themselves. That's where we should be spending our tax dollars, otherwise what's the point of paying taxes -except to improve upon or maintain our infrastructure (libertarians)?

[R Davis]

09:59 PM on 01/27/2011

So, your answer is to let those who are the more vulnerable just die off because it is too expensive to provide health care. Natural selection at work.

[David Soll]

06:29 PM on 01/26/2011

.

[David Soll]

06:23 PM on 01/26/2011

First of all... who can take an adult version of Eddie Munster seriously?

Paul Ryan's diatribe (rebutal) was nothing more than a long winded corporate right-wing laundry list of talking points, with no new ideas, and was as painful to listen to as......

Michelle Bachman's incoherent lunacy that it makes me wonder if she was even in the room (and the person we saw that looked like her was a robot version?). Nearly everything she bitched and moaned about was stuff that Obama had acknowledged in his SOTU address.

Leave to the allies of the corporate owned Tea Party (aka: the mouth pieces at Cluster Fox) to clear it all up for us.

[Robert Carruth]

11:17 AM on 01/27/2011

Mature. Very mature.

[Coyote1177]

06:18 PM on 01/26/2011

It is only because busiensses in america have failed that governeemtn trie to pick up the tab--our businesses are really exploitative of cheap labor and do not help create wealth or support the masses with basics

[Michael - IL]

09:09 PM on 01/26/2011

Is this what is taught in colleges today? Spelling errors aside, how many millionaires has the government created? Answer 535, just about everyone who enters congress is far less than a millionaire, virtually all depart millionaires with cushy pensions and lobbying positions in the waiting.

[Coyote1177]

11:25 PM on 01/26/2011

That's ridiculous! Are you saying that only millionaires should be in Congress?

[Coyote1177]

11:27 PM on 01/26/2011

Plus I am not offended by your personal attack of my spelling--it is the typing that sucks,and the eyes are getting old too, since I have no insurance I cannot afford to get a vision check. I think you should pay the money for it smarty

[VANDERGRAAFK]

05:55 PM on 01/26/2011

It looks as if many commentators focused on the "concessions" that Mr. Ryan made, i.e., the acknowledgement that Obama had been dealt a bad hand. What he doesn't do is pursue this bit of self-criticism more. First, where was the Republican majority when they controlled the Congress between 2002 and 2006? Nowhere! They put through an unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug benefited that provided both a donut hole to senior citizens and donuts to big Pharma. Second, when did that self-same Republican majority do anything to fund one inanely conceived war and another ineptly executed war? Those were off-balance sheet items, sort of what Wall Street was doing in order to leverage more of its capital while still giving the appearance of meeting capital requirements. Third, did Mr. Ryan somehow forget Mr. Greenspan's fear that we would have budget surpluses for the foreseeable future and that somehow the privacy of industry would be compromised.

Mr. Ryan, as resolute and consequential a libertarian you are, you will never be able to provide leadership unless you come clean about your party's profligate past. That you also cannot explain or excuse how your party managed to extract a two-year extension of unpaid for tax breaks, especially to the superrich, is evident that your party has no intention of being honest with the electorate.

You can fool some of the people most of the time, but you can't turn economic logic on its head.

[Robert Carruth]

11:23 AM on 01/27/2011

Higher revenues (taxes) never go to retiring debt; they lead to more spending which leads to more debt. That is what Congress has been doing for the last 30 years! And like Rep. Ryan said, both parties are culpable. No party is innocent. It's hard for partisans and ideologues to be mature, accept mutual responsibility and move forward to act in the best interest of the nation because they will have to abandon their blind allegiance to their ideology. Both parties have good ideas. Both parties have idiotic ideas. No party has a monopoly on intellect, truth and effective policy. Try to grasp that fact.

[VANDERGRAAFK]

06:02 PM on 01/27/2011

Apparently you slept through the 90s. During his first term, Bill Clinton pushed through higher taxes. I am hard pressed to recall substantial new spending on new programs that was pushed through, especially since after 94 the Republicans controlled the Congress. I do recall that Mr. Clinton left us with a budget surplus that had a lot to do with diminished defense spending (the so-called Cold War closure bonus) and regulatory oversight (double entendre meant!) with respect to dot coms and all of that which led to budgetary windfalls ) for the federal government and some states (that damned the State of California to foolishly boost state government employee and prison guard pensions to unwise levels).

Likewise the Congress adopted pay go whereby new government spending had to be offset by cuts elsewhere, a policy abandoned during the Bush years and reinstated by Nancy Pelosi in 2006. Thus, I find it difficult to put any credence in your thesis. It is and will remain a conservative ideological tenet, one abandoned as soon as they control both levers of government so that they may embark on wars of aggression and enact new government spending designed to line the pockets of big corporations (Medicare Part D reform).

Whenever someone uses "never" that always a red flag. It suggests an extreme view that is usually a wrong answer on the SAT or ACT. It also suggests an ideological perspective, one meant to close rather compel debate.

[Anatol Kardiukov]

12:21 AM on 01/28/2011

The super-rich must be the people/businesses who earn in excess of 250,000 a year? My business, dear Aristotle, makes well over 250,000 a year, but after overhead my net is only about 80,000. Minus tax, it comes up to a whooping 50,000. I guess I am super-rich, simply don't dig it.

[norkas]

05:52 PM on 01/26/2011

Bush 8 years and Republicans gave him a pass on two wars and runaway deficit and an unreal economic crash.

Massive fraud on Wall Street that cost all American hundreds of billions and a bigger deficit.

Democrats are no angels but Republicans really have to look at themselves and say this is where went terribly wrong but words are cheap.

Already you see Republicans want to limit laws protecting we the people against Wall Street rip offs.

We need to get the deficit under control and with the much needed tax break for the rich (\\) we are set back by another several hundred billion plus.

Democratic politicians are at fault big time because of the continued tax break that would have helped the deficit big time. All they had to say is that anyone one making over $500,000 will pay additional taxes. And when Republicans would cry poor people who make $600,000 dollar will have to pay and additional 3% on the $100,000 it would have backfired on them and the vast majority of Americans would go nuts.

I am not sure Democratic politicians are smart enough to figure out options on reducing the deficit because they had a great chance to do so and win over all Americans.

[Coyote1177]

06:19 PM on 01/26/2011

I noticed Boehner did not clap when the president talked about protecting people

[R Davis]

08:00 PM on 01/26/2011

Protecting the disadvantaged, the more vulnerable of our society is against his nature. He wants to support those who are successful in business. Which is good but it is a small part of society.

[kaine23]

05:39 PM on 01/26/2011

Let's see republican approval numbers after he makes public cutting SS and medicare.