新闻是有分量的

我们对众议员Paul Ryan的采访记录

周四,众议院预算委员会主席,R-Wis。的代表Paul Ryan访问了华盛顿审查员 ,与编辑委员会会面。 接下来是广泛讨论的成绩单,主题包括税收和支出政策,权利改革以及他可以被视为米特罗姆尼副总统竞选伙伴的持续猜测。

问:为了开始,我们在谈到一个问题之前我们正在谈论 - 我们的编辑们在思考,摸不着头脑,拉下他们的下巴,这就是为什么参议院不能简单地通过某种预算,让猴子脱身吗?

瑞恩:哦,这很容易。 他们不想向您展示他们对政府成本的看法。

问:那么简单吗?

瑞恩:是的。 看,当他们运行他们的号码时,他们当然不愿意接受权利 - 出于很多原因。 你必须在纸面上看到的税收增加种类,避免这种危机,这是你以前从未见过的种类,显然违反了,你知道,不要向任何低于25万美元的人征税。 另一件事是,会有真正的增长 - 破坏税收增加,它不会解决问题,因为它不会处理权利。 所以我只是不认为他们 - 他们宁愿接受他们什么都不做的敲门声,而不是实际上告诉你如果他们能做到的话会怎么做。

问:然而总统制定了预算 -

瑞安:但他的预算不符合实际解决问题的任何指标。 他的预算净支出增加了1.5万亿美元,仅增加了2万亿美元的税收增长率1.9,而十年来减少赤字的净结果为4000亿美元。 如果我们什么都不做,债务预计会上涨78%。 在他的预算下,它增加了76。 所以参议院无法提出这样的预算,因为它是如此不可信。 如果你看看他们去年的核心会议,你知道,为了使它超出预算,他们不得不减半,一半,一半增税,一半削减开支。 那么,这意味着你已经获得了4万亿美元的税收增加。 他们不得不再投入2万亿美元。 如果你看一下民主党人提出的预算,他们就会开始讨论4万亿美元这样的税收,他们增加了6万亿美元的税收。 进步的核心预算,他们基本上在增加税收方面高于对方。 因此,从数学上讲,你永远无法通过追求更高税收的更高支出来解决问题。 这在技术上是不可能的。 因此,如果他们不愿意处理这些他们不愿意处理这些权利的权利,那么它真的没有尽头。 而且他们不想公开医疗保健法,医疗保险和医疗补助也是如此 - 这些法律也有相当大的改变。 所以他们被困住了。

问:肯特康拉德在压力下弃牌吗? 你认为他真的打算把预算带到场上吗?

瑞恩:是的,我想 - 好吧,我不想进入肯特的想法,但是 -

问:不,我希望你这样做。

[笑声]

瑞安:我认识他很久了。 不,我的意思是我认为肯特感到非常尴尬的是,根据'74法案,预算的基本责任是在4月15日之前通过你的预算,但没有完成。 它反映的很差,所以我认为他想做一个预算。 而他们只是不让他这样做,因为如果你做任何预算实际上遇到了接近解决问题的任何体面指标,你必须想出 - 人们说 - 我认为它更多,但他们说4万亿美元。 这是在基线之上。 他们只是不愿意忍受这种情况。

他们要么不愿意减少开支,要么他们不愿意向国家展示为推动这一愿景所需的额外增税。 这就是去年阻止他们的原因。 他们实际上准备了我想的东西。 然后他们决定把它装瓶而不是展示这个国家。 所以这只是 - 他们只是放弃了领导力。 所以我们的观点是,我们需要新的领导者,然后我们将解决这个问题。 我们认为,我们有一个相当狭窄的机会窗口让我们摆脱这场债务危机。 这将是一场债务危机。 看看欧洲正在发生什么。 这是一个警示故事,如果我们继续在路上踢罐头会发生什么。 所有这些谈论一个“平衡的方法”,我在众议院的朋友,在过道的另一边继续说“平衡的方法” - 这只是意味着让我们现在开始欧洲紧缩。 顺便说一句,平衡的方法,这些平衡的方法,他们从来没有平衡预算。 他们永远不会平衡。 他们只是说增加税收。 如果你只是开始保持 - 如果你保持 - 这些权利的运作方式完好无损,在这里和那里几乎没有变化,然后增加税收,你只是把我们放在欧洲通往紧缩的道路上,这样那些一揽子计划将无法成功预防债务危机。

我们将通过一轮紧缩政策。 那不行。 然后债券市场将得到我们。 那么我们将进行另一轮,然后是另一轮和另一轮,就像欧洲经历的那样,我们将选择走下坡路,我们将失去一个十年。 所以我们看到总统和他的政党基本上都在实践失去的十年经济学 问题是我们是世界储备货币,它对我们来说可能更加丑陋。 我们认为,如果选举顺利进行,我们还有一个更大的机会和机会,可以一劳永逸地解决这个问题,并通过真正的权利改革,重组这些计划,实际税收,以正确的方式解决这个问题。改革以恢复增长。

我们想要增长,我们想要机会,我们想要改革,以便通过更新美国的想法 - 有限的政府,自由企业,以病人为中心的医疗保健 - 而不是欧洲的方式来解决这个问题:从摇篮到坟墓福利国家处于衰退之中,紧缩之后是紧缩政策,这意味着一旦政客们向选民提出这些空洞的承诺,双方都做了,他们就会很快成为破碎的承诺。 然后它只是紧缩。

问:主席先生,您的计划,通过和解可以做多少工作,因为参议院显然是一个大问题?

瑞恩:哦,不,可以通过和解来完成。 这就是整个想法。 整个事情可以通过和解来完成。 你可以做基本的权利改革。 每次完成,都是通过和解来完成的。 整个事情可以通过和解完成,所以如果你的问题是参议院,你知道,我们不需要有60票。 我们必须有一个坚实的51。

问:稳固?

瑞恩:是的,我的意思是你必须有人 -

问:你可以有50个 -

Ryan:嗯,你可以有50,再加上 - 是的,你必须得到50加VP,是的,是的,所以是的,你必须有一个坚实的50。谢谢你。

问: 昨天你才41岁。

瑞恩:嗯,是的。 我不认为这些做法选票必然完全反映出明年的情况。 我不想进入投票的人以及如何以及所有这些事情,但是看,我听到内布拉斯加州的这位女士赢得小学的好消息。 她听起来很有前途。 威斯康辛州,我对参议院的比赛感觉非常好。 我不知道谁会赢,但无论谁获胜,我知道这些人中的每一个都在跑,他们将会成为这种事情的正确投票。 打败Tammy Baldwin我感觉非常好。 所以我觉得我们有很好的取件机会,我真的这么做。

问: 你提到了副总统。 你现在正在接受罗姆尼战役的审查吗?

瑞安:我不会进入那个。 我没有改变我的任何答案。 每次走在街上我都会被问到这个问题。 我不会给出任何新的答案。 我会让他们对此发表评论。 如果我不打算进入任何一个。 我不是来谈这个。

问: 花了两块钱停车?

[笑声]

瑞恩:我知道。 我仍然对此感到厌烦。 我不得不进入这家美容院换取食物。 那里的好女士们。 如果你需要理发,那就往右走吧。 他们是非常好的人。

问: 在副总裁的职责中,准备担任总统,就外交政策做出决定等等。 你已成为众议院的一员 - 你的第14年了。 你必须稍微处理这个问题,但你如何跟上阿富汗,叙利亚和墨西哥的情况呢?

瑞安:我去那里。

问:你读什么?

瑞安:我去那里。 我读。 我的意思是我是伯纳德·路易斯的忠实粉丝。 我读过伯纳德·刘易斯的所有书籍,我读了很多关于这个主题的书。 我在21世纪初成立了中东核心小组。 在方法和手段,这是一个贸易委员会,我是MEFTA的重点人物。 这是一个神秘的想法。 我们以前喜欢做贸易协议。 MEFTA是中东自由贸易区倡议,我们相信这是创造 - 这在布什政府中是一个好主意。 与这些温和的穆斯林国家签订自由贸易协定,整合我们的经济。 你必须要求法治,妇女的权利,你知道,可执行的合同。 是的,但它一直在萎缩,所以我参与了摩洛哥协议,约旦协议,阿曼协议和巴林协议。 我与民主党就这方面的所有实施立法进行了谈判。 所以我花了很多时间在我的职业生涯中,前往中东。 这可能是我旅行的大部分时间已经消失的地方。 我去年12月在阿富汗; 我去过那里几次。 我花了很多时间阅读关于军队的文章,阅读外交政策。

但我不是 - 让我们没有这些试镜问题。 我宁愿谈论其他的东西。 但是,你必须认真对待这些选票。 我一直在投票 - 自1999年以来我一直在国会。所以我在9/11之前进入国会。 像大多数其他国会议员一样,9/11给我做的是,它让我们高兴地欣赏外交政策并对其进行了相当多的研究。

问:让我稍微改一下问题。 是 - 无论副总统候选人是谁,是不是 - 它让共和党人有一个优势,让一个人能够流利地谈论这些财政问题,而且可以 - 这不是一个棘手的问题。 我的意思是,它可能是Bobby Jindal,但可能是 - 但重要的是 - 通常,副总统,就像Joe Biden一样,预计不会做那种详细的政策分析。 这一次,每个人都将其视为非常关键的选举 -

瑞安:这一代人在一代人面临的最大危机是财政危机,这是我们的财政政策。 我们的财政政策与我们的货币政策相冲突。 这是最大的危机 - 这是最大的生存威胁,在一代人的时间里威胁着我们的国家。 就财政政策而言,就我而言,一切都掌握在甲板上。 我已经度过了 - 我职业生涯中最好的部分,试图让我们到这一刻,让我们的党派对这些想法保持正确,这样我们才能真正执行这些解决方案。 如果你实际上无法移动辩论的重心,并将这些想法付诸实践,那么保守派并在AEI上发表精彩演讲并不是一件好事。

所以这基本上就是我花费的时间。 当我在2008年布什政府时提出我的第一份路线图法案时,我得到了八个共同赞助商,八个人愿意把手放在炉子上。 2010年,我有14个共同赞助商,NRCC告诉所有人竞选国会,远离这个。 他们劝告所有这些人,无论你做什么,不要接受这件事,不要谈论它,不要谈论社会保障和医疗保险。 但是发生的事情是,所有这些候选人都这样做了。 因此,我花了很多时间与全国各地为国会竞选的人谈论你如何谈论这个,这是什么,给他们发了谈话点。

现在,我们连续两年通过了它。 所以我们已经移动了重心。 我们 - 茶党,感谢天堂,以及新生,我们一直愿意投票支持这些第三轨项目,现在我们要到达我们的地步必须执行这些想法,这意味着我们必须再举行一次选举,非常具体地询问这个国家,这是我们正在寻求的愿景。 这就是奥巴马占领这个国家的地方。 为我们投票,我们将实现这一愿景。 因此,我们有一个肯定的选举,所以我们实际上可以拥有道德权威和义务,在2013年将这些事情付诸实践,在债券市场到来之前躲避债务危机。

而且我们认为我们有一个缩小的机会窗口,所以我们真的相信我们需要给这个国家一个非常明确的两个期货选择。 现在我可以在我现在的地方做到这一点,这就是我正在做的事情。 所以,就我而言,我的工作非常出色,而且我能够有所作为,我认为我已经做到了,而这正是我所关注的。 所以我不是试图试听或说出这个位置或那个位置。 我想我们现在已经做了很多工作,我希望看到这件事。

问:关于那个,我讨厌成为黛比唐纳,但让我们说 -

瑞恩:没关系,其他人都是在这里做的,所以我已经习惯了。

问:让我们说奥巴马赢得连任,但这是一个喜忧参半的信息。

瑞恩:我们没有想到这一点。

问: 好的 -

瑞安:没有计划B.

[笑声]

问: 如果奥巴马再次当选,但这是一个喜忧参半的信息,我们有一个共和党众议院 -

瑞安:是的,这是一个很好的问题。

问:我不知道你是否看过汤姆科伯最近在华盛顿邮报的采访,他说他认为奥巴马愿意在权利上更进一步。

瑞恩:我已经听了四年了。 我从来没有见过它。

问: 如果奥巴马和民主党人同意罗恩·怀登 - 保罗·瑞安医疗保险协议,他们也同意摆脱漏洞,降低利率,你是否愿意从目前的政策基线转移收入?

瑞恩:我认为通过媒体或其他任何地方与我们自己谈判符合我们的利益。 每个人都说给我们更多的收入,他们都不愿意做权利改革。 他们尚未接受权利的任何根本重组。 那么,如果那些声称需要更多,更多,更多收入的人拒绝接受基本的权利改革,这就意味着那些高收入追逐更高的支出,那么在这些问题上与自己谈判的重点是什么呢? 所以我不喜欢 - 我不想进入假设,当没有人在另一边 - 当他们只是想要煽动权利改革时,却不接受它。

问:那你和Ron Wyden谈过了吗?

瑞安:是的,罗恩和我一直谈论权利改革和税制改革。 我们谈论更广泛的基础,更低的利率的想法。 我不打算就这个问题对Ron Wyden说话,但我所说的就是他 - 他把我当作比尔布拉德利式的家伙。 你知道,比尔布拉德利是86年税制改革的关键力量,这是很多改革的关键力量。 我认为罗恩是一个改革者,他想完成任务,谁不反对市场。 他并不反对自由市场和那些类型的东西。 我们不谈论收入水平和所有这些。

不要忘记,在我们的预算中,收入增加。 我的意思是收入来自 - 你知道,他们在油箱中下降到GDP的14%。 它们占GDP的18%至19%。 这是问题所在。 预计消费将从20%增加到现在,大约24,然后从那里开始像火箭一样上升。 当我的孩子与我的年龄相比,它达到GDP的40%,然后在本世纪末达到80%。

因此,如果那些要求这一点的人完全参与政府上升,加倍,然后再加倍,那么我们就不会感到高兴,我们将从19%到20%,或占GDP的21%。 给我们关于权利改革的承诺和投票,让政府回到GDP的20%,然后让我们谈谈。 但是,不要只是说给我们更多的收入,我们不会给你任何权利改革或削减支出。 这不是谈判的方式。

问:现在,关于这个收入问题,对你的预算的一个批评是你降低税率,你说通过扩大基数来支付税率,但它没有具体说明基数如何扩大,具体的漏洞和扣除等等。

瑞恩:是的,但你知道预算如何运作,菲尔。 我的意思是,这是预算决议。 如您所知,预算解决方案是我们财政政策的架构概要,并将这些指示发送给委员会以开始工作并填写详细信息。 这就是方法和手段要做的事情。 因此,作为方法和手段的成员,您没有提供所有这些细节 - 我们没有在我们的预算中提供每个无限的细节和高级支持。 我们与CBO有一封相当冗长的信,所以我们可以得到我们的分数。 但那是方法和手段。

就像这个农业法案一样,我们说要摆脱直接支付,从法案的农业标题中削减350亿美元,而农业委员会确切地知道如何做到这一点。 同样如此,这就是预算决议如何运作的本质。 什么方式和方法想要做的是在公共场合,而不是在后面的房间里。 我们不想在税收支出上进行一些马匹交易。 我们想在公众场合这样做。 让我们来看看哪些最重要。 使用此括号结构,某些税收优惠还有剩余财政空间。 没有太多的财政空间。 然后你必须问自己,哪些是重要的,谁应该得到它们。 而在什么和谁,这就是你如何拓宽基础并降低利率,你甚至可以在静态的基础上做到这一点。 现在我们的收入表明,由于增长将会 - CBO基线甚至会给我们带来更多增长。 增长和基数扩大使我们获得了这里的收入水平。 我认为收入实际上要高得多,因为如果我们实际进行税制改革并锁定基本权利改革,即长期债务减免,这将有助于我们在短期内为我们的经济和利率,我认为我们'我会更快地平衡预算。 我们推出了这种替代增长方案,它显示了三种不同的情况以及这种情况将如何发生。 但是,预算委员会的工作并不是指定那些漏洞关闭者。 这是方法和手段委员会的工作。

那些[众议院议长John Boehner,R-Ohio)前几天试图在彼得森的事情上做的是,我们将如何决定所有这些,我们将把当前的代码延长一年,因此,有计划和确定性,以便真正担心这列火车的人在年底破坏,知道我们的意图。 我们的目的是给他们另外一年的现行代码,然后我有一个快速通道程序 - 它将是税收改革的超级和解。 我们希望在2013年建立实际执行税制改革的动力,即1986年。这是一段时间,我们将在其中讨论所有这些问题。

问:你已经提到了医疗保险的东西,基本上, - 你去年的计划,以及今年的计划,等待十年才能实现。

瑞恩:是的,就像去年一样。

问: 但不同的是,今年,你允许人们选择购买他们的优质支持美元和购买 - 购买 - 基本上购买传统的医疗保险。

Ryan:服务费,但它受到限制,Medicare交易所内的所有其他计划的优惠支持,对。

问:所以,如果 - 基本上 -

瑞恩:是的,为什么不开始呢 - 为什么不让人们早点呢? 我认为这是一个好主意。 我认为,当您执行Ways and Means实施时,这些是您填写的详细信息,这是(年龄)55及以上是明确的转换。 我们一直设想的,以及我们的信件所指定的是,当我们开始时,让老年人,老年人,如果他们想要,进入高级支持系统。

还有像爱丽丝·里夫林这样的人,他们说得很好,现在就在自愿的基础上开始,让人们进入它。 我认为这值得考虑。 从精算的角度来看,我不知道这是怎么回事。 但是当我们启动高级支持系统时,我们所做的是,如果他们选择这样做,我们允许超过该截止期限的人进入高级支持系统,如果他们愿意的话。 这是自愿的,所以我想你可以早点开始自愿的基础。 从理论上讲,由于Medicare基线现在的增长方式,它并没有为您节省太多。 在接下来的十年里,它现在的增长率低于GDP.5。 然后我们认为竞标会使利率低于上限。 但是因为CBO无法得分,所以你必须要有这个上限。 CMS的精算师告诉我们,他们认为竞标会降低价格,就像D部分一样。

问: 但我只是在政治上说的更多,我的意思是如果你通过预算,并且假设你的预算在2013年转到了和解,并且在2023年之前的高级支持方面没有完全启动,那么有十年的时间,民主党可以接管国会,并可以在实际之前废除它等等 - 而且它永远不会得到实施。

瑞恩:是的,我的意思是我理解这一点。 我们试图在这里展示的,这是非常重要的一点,我们在紧缩打击之前有这个小小的机会之窗。 我的意思是,如果我们现在去改革权利,现在意味着在未来两年内,我们可以保证现在的老年人获得承诺给他们的好处。 如果我们继续等待,那保证就会消失,然后因为这些数字会远离我们,所以我们必须实时削减当前的老年人,这是他们在希腊和其他地方必须做的事情。欧洲国家。

所以我们在这里要做的就是不要吃你的豌豆,去找牙医,你知道,把它扣下来。 不,我们试图说,如果我们现在走了,我们可以再次实现经济增长和繁荣,税收改革,改革,你知道,摆脱所有打击经济,不确定性和所有人的坏事他们围绕这个项目组织生活,退休或者即将退休,我们相信如果我们为下一个队伍进行改革,我们仍然可以兑现那些承诺。如果你继续踢着罐头,你无法做到这一点。 因此,我认为这是一个令人信服的观点,即我们越早行动,人们退休时就越安全; 我们越是拖延,所有投注都越多。 所以这一点 - 你的观点或多或少 - 你知道,它突破了这一点,它违反了这个前提,我认为这是一个非常引人注目的前提,它给了我们能力,意味着总统,白宫现在,参议院和众议院要解决这个问题,我们可以按照我们作为美国人的条件,在我们的时间表中进行前瞻性的,因为如果我们继续走下总统的道路,那么所有的赌注都是关闭的,这是紧缩,而且2014年,2015年,我们实时削减每个人的利益。 我们正在提高税收以取悦债券市场,放缓我们的经济,而且我们陷入了迷失 - 不只是失去的十年 - 失去的一代,陷入衰退模式。 这就是我们想要做的。

问:你一直提到的截止点是债券市场抓住我们的时候。 那是什么时候?

瑞安:我不知道,但我不想诱惑它。 越早 - 这是所有的信心和轨迹。 你介意我这样做吗? [在这一点上,瑞恩站起来走向一个白板,并绘制了一张粗略的图表,显示债务与GDP的比率随着时间的推移而增长,如果没有做任何事情并在他的计划之下。]它的全部 - 它确实是,它的信心和轨迹。 所以现在,我们的债务,你知道,就像这样,它就像这样 - 我的意思是它很难看。 这是CBO。 我们所说的是,你知道,我们会借钱,因为我们有婴儿潮一代的到来。 我们的医疗保健成本上升,婴儿潮一代涌入。我们退休人口增加了100%,纳税人口增加了17%。 我们把它称为猪和蟒蛇,你知道,在我们的 - 它确实是,这是冲进系统的冲动。 我们可以做到这一点。 那就是,你知道,基本上就是婴儿潮一代。 这就是你和我刚才所说的。 [指向菲利普克莱恩。]如果我们锁定这个债务轨迹,在过去的一个世纪里,我们将避开债务危机和警察。 但它必须是真实的。 它不可能是花哨的东西。 这里不能增加一点税收,减少一点利益,以及以后支出上限的承诺,佣金和类似的东西。 它必须是,我们是否改变了创造这一点的法律 - 这个开放式的固定福利制度,真正空洞的承诺,政府无法实现现金流。 在CBO的模型中,经济在2031年关闭,它只是停止,因为债务变得如此糟糕。

因此,这完全取决于信心和轨迹,这意味着,我们是否能够像这样得到债务的轨迹[指向图表中的债务轨迹趋于平稳并随着时间的推移开始下降],我们相信我们将会见面那条轨迹? 我们能够确信我们能够实现这一目标的唯一途径是,我们真正地改变了创造这一目标的法律,这就是这些权利的本质,从进入开放式的固定福利制度,到限定的定额缴费制度,我们可以按照我们作为一个国家的条件,更多地为穷人,为病人做更多,为富人做更多事情。 这对穷人来说确实是一种明确的利益,对其他人都有明确的贡献。 如果我们通过这些法律,意味着改写权利法则,我们相信我们会得到这条轨迹,然后我们就会获得红利。 然后我们让债券市场说,'你知道吗,把你的钱存入美国。 这是去的地方,因为这些人在欧洲和其他地方,他们没有这样做。 所以我真的看到这个国家的复兴增长,因为我们先于紧缩政策,提前获得财政红利。 我们保持世界储备货币。 我们进行税制改革,因此我们具有竞争力。 而且我真的看到这个国家的经济增长复兴,因为其他所有人都是一个篮子案件,扼杀和提高税收,提高增值税和削减税收 - 但他们仍然是开放式的权利,他们是福利国家,失业利率是长期的两位数。 我们不会。 我们将这一轨迹锁定到位,债券市场将奖励我们,货币将会强劲,我们将获得增长。 所以对我而言,这是我们成功的秘诀,我们必须赢得这场选举才能获得成功。

问:米特罗姆尼能得到这个吗?

瑞恩:是的。 这就是我支持他的原因。 他和我多次谈过这个问题。 我的意思是,他得到了这个。 我真的相信这是80年代,只是不同的问题,也就是说,我们可以在这个国家得到复兴。 我们可以重新开始增长,我们可以真正锁定这些东西。 在我们进入紧缩模式之前,我们有一个非常狭窄的机会之窗。 所以对我来说,这是关键。

问:总督罗姆尼得到它,以及州长罗姆尼竞选它, 因为我的意思是你把它放在那里的方式 -

瑞恩:前几天他在爱荷华州就此发表了精彩的演讲。 当我在威斯康星州与他在一起时,他在阿普尔顿做了很棒的演讲。 他正在谈论这个问题。 是的,他们让我们去参加周日节目。 我特别不愿意选择参加这些周日节目。 他们要求我们在周日节目中谈论这个,所以他们问 - 他们希望我们谈论这些东西。

问:但这可能是一个乐观的信息,我的意思是你把它放在那里的方式。

瑞恩:是的,这是我的观点。 我的意思是 - 这不是 - 我对Phil [Klein]的观点是,我们不是在这里销售根管经济学。 我们正在销售增长,我们正在销售机会,而且我们正在销售,'让我们现在解决这个问题,保证对我妈妈,你妈妈的承诺,你知道,这样我们才能真正做到这些,然后那些我们这些年轻的人,你知道,你想拥有一些值得信赖的东西。 那些东西,如果我们继续沿着这条道路走下去,我们就不会在退休时获得这些好处,更不用说我的孩子了。 当政府向人们做出空洞的承诺时,这是另一种说法对人们撒谎的方式,而这就是正在发生的事情。

双方都这样做了,所以我不只是说,民主党人不好,共和党人也不错。 这是一个计划,让政府对已经退休或即将退休的人,以及我们其余的人,即十年之后离开,退休15至20年,改革这些计划,所以我们实际上可以依靠的东西,并以我们躲避债务危机的方式做到这一点,我们有一个良好的税收制度,我们有一个良好的监管体系,我们有一个声音货币,我们可以真正成长。 这就是美国如何重新振作起来,重新走上前进的道路 - 这就是为什么我们将预算称为繁荣之路。

问:你说没有B计划,但事实上,如果只有一个 -

瑞安:B计划是紧缩政策。

在共和党领导层中是否有人在思考或计划这一点,制定应急计划? 或者如果它发生的话,这会发生吗?

瑞安:思考它并不难。 这不是那么难,只是 - 你知道,这有点取决于我们是否得到了参议院,我想。 这取决于三个 - 我认为有多少杠杆。 如果你控制所有的国会,你就在 - 参议院就是这样的坟场。 所以 - 确实如此。 我的意思是他们可以 - 他们可以很容易地装瓶东西。 我的意思是看看他们过去几年一直在做什么。 所以我认为B计划取决于分裂政府的构成。

国会议员,即使他们背靠着希腊和法国的隔离墙,选民也有点决定不这样做 - 削减福利的途径。 美国选民将如何与众不同?

瑞安:这是一个非常好的问题。 所以,我看到这个国家有两个临界点:这一个 - 债务临界点[指向图表],即债券市场接管,利率上升,以及情况,我们失去对它的控制。 然后兴趣成为我们最大的政府计划。 第二个转折点是美国制造商与制造商相比的文化转折点。 如果我们拥有大多数美国人,净消费者 - 政府福利的净吸收者 - 他们的生活围绕着永久性的依赖,那么我们将处于欧洲模式。 这真的非常难看。 我们失去了我们的伟大,失去了我们的繁荣,失去了社会的机会,我们失去了高流动性的概念。

如果我们现在就去,并立即解决这个问题,我们将恢复机会经济,向上移动和安全网,旨在让人们重新站起来,而不是让他们陷入自满和依赖的生活中。 这就是我们在预算中如此强调福利改革的原因。 当我们在20世纪90年代进行福利改革时,我们只改革了一个项目,现金福利,AFDC。 实际上还有许多其他福利计划尚未改革。 所以你知道,我们正在目睹那些其他计划刚刚完全扩散,并使人们更难以再次重新获得回报。 因此,我们建议的是,阻止授予这些计划,时间限制,工作要求,职业培训改革,以及工作培训的凭证。 [You] got 49 different programs sort of across nine different agencies, and so we really believe that we still have a welfare state that needs to be rewired towards self-sufficiency, upward mobility, and that is there for people who truly cannot help themselves, but as a temporary aid of support wired to get people back on their feet, on the way to self-sufficiency. And if we miss this opportunity to do that, then I think what you say about Europe is what will happen here, and we'll miss this chance.

We're still a center-right country. Most Americans still believe in the American idea. They still believe in the American dream of making a life for themselves. They have a horizon they're looking for, and they think their kids are gonna be better off. While we still have a majority of men and women in this country who believe in that, we owe them this vision, this implementable solution, so that they can pick it in the election in a very affirmative real way, so that we have the obligation of implementing it. And that's what this is all about, as far as I'm concerned.

Q : Let me just jump in. It's hard for me to sit here and listen to this, and to be on the Hill every day, and see how you guys take one step forward and three steps backwards. What do you envision happening in sequestration at this point because there's another example of Congress totally backing down on planned cuts that both sides initially agreed on.

Ryan: The plan was the super committee was supposed to come up with a savings. And our guys on the Super Committee put three different plans on there, which were summarily rejected and no counter offers made. I think the Super Committee was wired for failure from the beginning when the President started issuing his veto threats. That tipped me off right away that this is not gonna be an exercise that's gonna be fruitful. So we said this was never our intention to do it this way. We just put – we reconciled $315 billion of savings to pay for $78 billion of sequester cuts, for one year. And we like that ratio. It's about four to one, and so we're saying – same with the taxes.

We're gonna vote on tax policy this summer, so we feel like, in the House, it's our obligation to say exactly what we'll do with these sort of train wreck issues. Now we don't expect them to get acted on because the Senate's doing nothing, and the President's campaigning. So at least we go into the lame duck with a position that's very clear, and then the lame duck – my guess is whoever wins the election is really in the cat-bird seat to determine what happens in the lame duck. Now we wrote the sequester, and without getting into the technical parts of it, it was basically turning Gramm-Rudman back on.

And Phil Gramm actually wrote a pretty good op-ed in the Journal – I don't know, six months ago or something like that. We believe we have an opportunity to put in cuts, cuts to replace the sequester, quickly in January. Without getting into all the Senate minutia, but – so if we win, then we think we can replace those cuts with other cuts, and also on taxes, even if the President – if he becomes lame duck, and the Senate's lame duck, and they don't want to extend the rates, we'll do it retroactively. That's me speaking for myself, so that's plan A. And then we'll do what I just said, you know, in 2013, with all these things, all these reforms. So that's plan A. Plan B then is – I think it's who runs what? Do they run the Senate, do we run the House, is the President there? Then it's a negotiated settlement.

Q : They're not going to get their tax increases, and you guys aren't going to get your cuts. I mean, it's just going to be a stalemate; I think automatic sequestration seems inevitable in some ways, you know?

Ryan: No, I don't know. I don't know if I'd say that. It's definitely possible, that's for sure. I mean it's going to happen in law, it's happening. But when Leon Panetta comes to the Hill and tells us it hollows out our military and it's a shot to the head – I think those are his words – you know, that's pretty harrowing. And more to the point, there's so much – we haven't touched mandatory spending since 2006; 61 percent of our budget is off-limits and on auto-pilot. And the last time Congress got any savings out of that slice of the budget was 2006, and we got $40 billion over five years. I mean this is ridiculous.

So we just brought a bill to the floor the other day. It gets 116 over five years, I think is the number – 315 – no, it's 160 over five, 315 over ten. We passed it easily. I had dinner with Denney Hastert like two years ago, you know, after he was speaker. I mean you know, what did you learn, you know, you had one of those sort of post-exit interview kind of dinners, and Denny – I've known Denny – his district is near mine. I said what was the hardest thing you ever had to do when you were speaker? He was speaker for eight years. He said, 'oh, by far, the DRA was the hardest thing I ever had to do.'

That was the – we wrote it in 2005, passed it in 2006, cutting $40 billion out of mandatory spending over five years was the hardest thing in eight years he had to do. That just shows you how pitiful our Republican majority used to be. And it shows you –

Q : He presided over that famous Part D vote that lasted all night, too.

Ryan: Yeah, right. No, I know. And the hardest thing was the DRA, which is the last time Congress went into mandatory spending. We should be doing that every single year. So you know – so when we went into this side of the budget, I mean looking at food stamps, all we're saying is you have to be actually eligible for them to receive them. And now, you know, we're getting – I'm getting nuns picketing me, and all this stuff. Come on, I mean, you know, the per child tax credit: You actually have to be – have a Social Security number to get it, you know, radical ideas. It's like the end of the world. We can find the savings. 那不是问题。 It's just do we have the will and do we have the votes, and we'll see.

Q : Now on healthcare: Republicans ran on repealing, replacing Obamacare, but talking to a lot of Republicans, I feel as though the idea of repealing Obamacare has become an easy proxy for having actual plan to reform the healthcare system.

Ryan: Oh, you mean 'repeal' is synonymous with 'replace' in people's minds, is that what you're saying?

Q: Yeah, you know, people talk about repealing Obamacare, and don't get to the replace part. Now next month, the Supreme Court is gonna rule, and we're gonna know what the outcome of that is. If the Supreme Court does overturn Obamacare, the immediate focus is going to shift on to what are Republicans going to do to replace it. Now I know that you've –

Ryan: I've been pretty specific on all that stuff, yeah.

Q : You've unveiled plans and so forth. Where do you see the – because we keep hearing things about Ways and Means working on things with energy and commerce and so forth. Where do things stand? Do you think that Republicans are ready to unite around a healthcare alternative sometime before the election, and specifically, importantly, if Obamacare gets overturned?

Ryan: It wouldn't be an interview with Phil Klein without a provocative question on healthcare.

Q : We were all waiting.

Ryan: Yeah, so SCOTUS – we see three scenarios, you know, [the health care law] doesn't get struck down at all, and the status quo continues; part of it gets knocked down, the mandate; and then the whole thing. And so those are slightly different variations, which require different responses, but the point is we do feel obligated to articulate our vision for replace. Now do we want to cram though – we had nine weeks of sessions left. Do we want to cram through our own 2700-page vision? No, I mean that's not – that's what the country hated. But do we believe in patient-centered healthcare and market-based medicine, you know, a lot of us have put a lot of time and effort into this, yeah.

There are a lot of people with different ideas, and so number one, I think our nominee is gonna have a lot to say about this, and that's really important. Number two, we're all discussing these contingencies, and how we best articulate our vision. And I don't think it's a good idea to put out some big bill, thump it on the table, that's thousands of pages, and then try ramming it through. That's precisely the process that angered the country so much.

So I think what we'll probably – hopefully – do, is put out a vision for how we think we should fix this thing, and all the catalog of solutions that are out there, and we've got lots of them, you know, whether it's insurance reforms and risk pools, and pooling mechanisms, tax treatment of healthcare, you know, the things that we think are necessary to get at the root cause of health inflation, get the patient-centered system back in place. And there are different ways of doing it. Tax treatment of healthcare, people like – some of our folks really like deductions, some of us like the tax credit route.

There are various ways of doing that. I don't think we're gonna settle specifically on one bill because there are a lot of people who have different ideas on how to do this. I think the nominee will have a lot to say about that, but I think what we will aspire to do is put out a vision on what a patient-centered healthcare system looks like. And that vision is the replace side of repeal, which is what we want to execute in 2013.

Q : You mentioned a few times, the need to get a mandate this election, to get something really specific in place.

Ryan:Well, I mean we've voted on this budget, which has more detail than anybody's resolution that's passed in modern history, so we've –

Q : But have created a platform, had it ratified in an election, and then implemented. Bill Clinton was speaking at a fiscal policy summit earlier this week. And he brought up Wisconsin and the Tea Party Congress, the 2010 –

Ryan: Oh, did he – is that the Peterson thing?

Q : Yeah, he mentioned the Wisconsin elections and the 2010 elections as examples of the same thing, which is the American people not really taking ownership of government, and they talk about how terrible these politicians are, but they voted them all in. And the line he said was that we respond to thematic visions a lot, without really paying attention to the details. He was saying, you know, give Scott Walker some back-handed credit. He said he was gonna do this, give the Tea Party Congress credit.

Ryan: He did. Yeah, I campaigned with Scott all in 2010. He said he was gonna do this.

Q : They said they were gonna do it, and now they did it, and now there's this backlash, and they've been – it's because they haven't really – I forget if he said they haven't been checked in or paying attention to the details of what these politicians said they were gonna do. They just responded to the broad strokes.

Ryan: I've been running on these ideas since I've been in Congress.

Q : No, but he was saying – he was saying they run on the ideas, but then the Americans aren't checked in and paying attention.

Ryan: Oh, I think they're paying attention more than ever before. I think the left is obviously in reactionary mode, lots of demagoguery. They're not even running against Scott's reforms now at home; they're just trying to trash Scott Walker. They don't even say it was wrong to do this collective bargaining change, because you know what, it's working. It's bringing in school reform. They're getting better teachers. They're saving money. Property taxes went down for the first time in 12 years. So the actual reforms that Scott put in place, the actual policies, they're really popular, they're working.

No, they really are, and so I mean it's all the other stuff. They're just trying to destroy him to get the power back, so my point – I didn't hear the Clinton speech – is when people actually see the specifics of these reforms, and they actually see what these ideas are and get by the demagoguery, they're popular. So what I tell conservatives is, do it. Follow through and we will be well rewarded, and more importantly, we'll save the country from becoming Europeanized. And so, you know, that's my lesson, which is say what you're gonna do, get elected, and then do it, and then show how it works. And that's – we're in the middle of that phase.

I mean Scott got everything because the whole entire legislature – he got the Senate and he got the Assembly, and he got – and he won. So Scott – we call this Act 10. He got his plan in place, and thankfully, there's been a year now, where the results are really working. We don't have that. We've got to divide a government situation. It takes two election cycles for these things to filter through the system. And so we got half way through. We got to the 50-yard line, now we've got to finish the job in this election. And then we have to – but we have to go to the country with these solutions, so they know very clearly who we are. Obama ran on hope and change, and vague platitudes, and whatever you thought he was. 我们做不到。

We can't just say we're against him because he's bad. We'll say that, but we also say here's what we're for, and here's what we're gonna do, so that when we win, we're more accountable to making sure that we do it. That's my biggest fear, is the second worst thing that could happen – the worst thing is Obama gets re-elected. The second worst thing is we do win, and then we lose our nerve. We go with big platitudes. We don't fix the problem because we want to just stay in the majority. That's the mindset we had the last time we were in the majority. That's the second worst thing that could happen. In order to prevent that from happening, you got to run on a mandate.

Q : Chairman Ryan, can you – can I get back to this magic point here [on the graph]. I mean the Democrats have managed to successfully win a kind of public relations war on [saying] what the Republicans want to do is cut your benefits in entitlement reform.

Ryan: I think we're gonna win that exchange, but go ahead – so conceding the point.

Q : I mean so far, they have. Can you win – can you drive home – I don't want to call it scare politics, but if you come home and go to the voters and say, 'it's not if we – it's if we don't do something that you hurt' –

Ryan: I just did six town hall meetings last week on that very point, explaining, 'look, we either fix this now on our terms in our own way as a country, or the situation gets really bad, and then we're in crisis management, and then everybody's getting cut, everybody's getting hurt, we're pulling the rug out from under them.'

Q : I'm talking about seniors – I mean you were –

Ryan: That's what I'm talking about, so I say this in town hall meetings to seniors. I say look, here's what we're proposing. First of all, it's not all that radical. Second of all, when people realize the status quo is not going to stay, and actually, the status quo means we go off the cliff, and we have a plan to prevent that from happening, reasonable people think, you know, okay, well, then do it. How do you win a district that went from Clinton, Dukakis and Obama, and I've been running around these entitlement reforms, really specific entitlement reforms, since I got started – and how do you – I took Les Aspen's seat, you know, it was – I mean he knows the district, just ask him.

I mean how do you win in a district like that? I have to have cross-over voters. And you win by just being really honest with people about what's going on and what you're trying to do. And they cut you slack – they give you the benefit of the doubt because you're really clear about it. You say why you're doing what you're doing, and people – I have so many people that say, you know, you're more conservative than I am, but at least you're trying and I can see that you're offering solutions, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have more conversations in stop-and-go in the grocery store like that, than the other kind.

Q : I'm really talking about the effectiveness of saying to his senior, 65-year-old, that three year's time, if we don't do something, your benefits are going to get cut. I mean I think the macro picture –

Ryan: Yeah, I mean that's what I say. This thing gets out of our control, and then it's European – if you look at my Power Point I did my last town halls, I say, here's where we're headed; Europe is already there; and here is what Europe is doing, you know, pension cuts, healthcare benefit cuts, you know, raising taxes, youth unemployment is this, regular unemployment is that. That's what austerity is.

That's what you do when you keep kicking the can down the road, the bond markets have turned on you, and you have to do crisis management. That's what will happen to us – our country, if we don't prevent this from happening. And what we're saying is get ahead of this problem now, and the kinds of reforms we're proposing are – which is we'll hold you harmless, and we think we can – to your earlier point, we think we can if we go and reform these things soon.

Q: That's the thing, I mean getting back to the Scott Walker point. You had mentioned how the – Scott Walker, you think is gonna win, and one of the things that happened is that because the collective bargaining reforms went into effect –

Ryan: That's his saving grace, like Kasich didn't have time for – in there, you can recall the law not the guy, but Kasich didn't have time to show that it was working.

Q : That's what I'm saying, so getting back to my question earlier about letting things kick in earlier. I mean is the fear that basically if you say – you know, ten years, none of these fundamental reforms are gonna go into place, does that allow Democrats to demagogue that for a decade?

Ryan: I don't think so because I think – especially on Medicare, this is bipartisan. Now, it's not bipartisan with Obama and Reed, but it's bipartisan with Ron Wyden and Alice Rivlin and others. And I talk to a lot of other elected Democrats who like the idea, but won't say so publicly because the fear of getting shot in the back by their party – and no I'm not gonna give you their names because I need to work with them, and I don't want to hurt them.

But the point is Phil, this is a bipartisan idea, so I really, really believe with the right leadership in place, especially on this particular entitlement, there is a – (former Democratic Senator from Lousiana) John Breaux is the guy who started popularizing this idea from the Clinton Commission. It came from Brookings. I think this is an idea that's bipartisan that will stick, and I don't think it will be undermined.

Q : You sound pretty confident about the recall election June 5 th .

Ryan: I'm nervous about it. No, I'm nervous about it. I'm nervous about it because it's close. The polls look good right now, but the avalanche is still coming and it's all about turnout. And the reason I feel pretty good about turnout is – did you look at the turnout numbers on the primary? It's pretty impressive. There was no reason for a Republican to really go vote. And so Scott's votes in a primary that really was inconsequential, was bigger than Falk and Barrett combined.

And in Racine County, which as you know, is our lynchpin swing county, you know, we had more Republicans turn out than Democrats did, and Van Wanggaard is in a big match with John Lehman in a recall election there. So based on performance, on turnout ballot, I feel voter intensity is – it's equal on both sides, but I'm nervous about it because this is execution, this is turnout, this is too close to call. But I would rather be Scott Walker than Tom Barrett at this moment.

Q : They've got to count the votes in Brookfield?

Ryan: I'm not gonna comment on that.

Q : Congressman, for 2012, what does this mean for –

Ryan: It's a momentum maker or breaker for either side. If we lose, it's – we suffer a momentum loss. If we win, it's a huge, huge momentum maker for us. You've got to give the other side their due: if they win this thing, if they beat Scott, then they've got great momentum going in the fall. And if they lose it, they lose a lot of momentum going in the fall, same with us.

Q : Chairman Ryan, thank you so much.