The honest answer is that it probably means nothing. I don’t think there’s been an election in my lifetime that was impacted by the second person on a presidential ticket.
And a quick look at Intrade.com shows that Ryan’s selection hasn’t (at least yet) moved the needle. Obama is still in the high 50s.
Moreover, the person who becomes Vice President usually plays only a minor role in Administration policy.
With those caveats out of the way, the Ryan pick is mostly good news.
Here are the reasons why I’m happy.
- I think Ryan genuinely believes in small government, low tax rates, and free markets. Heck, he’s even read Ayn Rand, and is willing to admit that he likes her writings.
- Ryan put together a good budget and got the Republican Party to rally around the plan – a remarkable achievement considering that the same GOPers had just spent 8 years supporting the irresponsible fiscal policies of the Bush Administration.
- He understands that not all entitlement reform is created equal. Instead of supporting means-testing (which produces implicit higher marginal tax rates) and unsustainable price controls, Ryan got his colleagues to support Medicaid block grants and premium support (or vouchers) for Medicare.
- Ryan is a proponent of the flat tax and can competently discuss not only the importance of low tax rates, but also why double taxation is misguided and why it’s wrong to use the tax code to pick winners and losers.
Here are two reasons why I’m worried.
- Both Romney and Ryan are somewhat sympathetic to a value-added tax. My worst-case scenario is they win the election, but then can’t get a good budget approved because of some squishy Republican senators who put self interest above national interest. Romney and Ryan then decide that this European-style national sales tax is the only way – on paper – of making the budget balance. In reality, of course, we’ll suffer the same fate as Europe since the VAT revenues will be used to finance ever-larger government.
- Ryan has some very bad votes in his past, including support for TARP, the auto bailout, the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education legislation, and the reckless Medicare prescription drug entitlement. Everyone says to ignore those votes because Ryan knew he was voting the wrong way, but if he’s already made some deliberately bad decisions for political reasons, what’s to stop him from making more deliberately bad decisions for political reasons?
But as I said above, don’t read too much into Ryan’s selection. if Republicans win, Romney will be the one calling the shots.
Though this does give Ryan a big advantage the next time there’s an open contest for the GOP nomination – either 2016 or 2020.
P.S. I suspect putting Ryan on the ticket will shift Wisconsin into the GOP column. Based on my last prediction, that would be enough to defeat Obama. But I’ll have to contemplate whether the pick hurts Romney’s chances in another state. You’ll have to wait until September 6 for my updated election prediction.
P.P.S. For those who care about politics, some are saying that selecting Ryan was risky because it gives Obama and his allies an opportunity to demagogue the GOP ticket about entitlement reform. I disagree. Even if Romney picked Nancy Pelosi, that demagoguery was going to happen. Heck, they’ve already accused Romney of causing a woman’s death, so I hardly think they’ll be bashful about throwing around other accusations.
[…] Prof. Graetz wants bigger and more expensive government. He’s proposing a VAT for the same reason Cong. Paul Ryan has proposed a VAT. They think the revenue can be used to reduce the burden of the income tax. They’re not wrong in […]
[…] Graetz wants bigger and more expensive government. He’s proposing a VAT for the same reason Cong. Paul Ryan has proposed a VAT. They think the revenue can be used to reduce the burden of the income tax. They’re not wrong […]
@Anthony Davis: How then do you explain Gov. Walker not only winning his recall, but by a larger margin than won his original election?
@Dan: Not only were Democrats going to demagogue the republican ticket no matter what, but Ryan is more than capable of defending himself and advancing the argument. The more the Democrat party demagogues him, and the more he stays on message shooting down their ridiculousness, the more Obama loses independents who see Romney/Ryan are not the wife killing, grandma pushers Democrats say they are… It’s a big part of why they lost in 2004 – G. W. Bush, for all his faults, was not the baby killer Democrats said he was.
Not enough to change my mind away from voting for Gary Johnson.
You are right because most of the time it doesn’t matter. However, it did matter in 1960 with LBJ helping in Texas.
[…] Does It Matter that Paul Ryan Is on the GOP Ticket? […]
By hook or crook Obama wins; the US will be more than ready for Ryan in 2016 as the true advocate of hope and change…hope it won’t be too late for the USA
Conventional wisdom tells us that it doesn’t matter in a Presidential election who the vice presidential nominee is. But if recent history teaches us anything, it’s that conventional wisdom is wrong more often than not.
I disagree that Wisconsin will shift into the GOP column because of Paul Ryan. The power of organized labor in that state is much too strong. It was a predictable choice, but you’re right, it ultimately means nothing: Obama is still going to win either way. It remains left to be seen whether or not being part of a campaign that goes down in defeat will be too much baggage for Ryan to overcome if he chose to run for president in 2016.