NYT's take on Paul Ryan

Here's what the NYT editorialized about Paul Ryan this morning:

As House Budget Committee chairman, Mr. Ryan has drawn a blueprint of a government that will be absent when people need it the most. It will not be there when the unemployed need job training, or when a struggling student needs help to get into college. It will not be there when a miner needs more than a hardhat for protection, or when a city is unable to replace a crumbling bridge.

And it will be silent when the elderly cannot keep up with the costs of M.R.I.’s or prescription medicines, or when the poor and uninsured become increasingly sick through lack of preventive care.

What's missing from the Times' diatribe, of course, is any discussion of how a government with $15 trillion of debt on balance sheet (and hundreds of trillions of dollars more off) might actually pay for any of these things. Liberals never seem to be able to understand that it doesn't matter how wonderful and compassionate their vision for social spending is if the government can't actually pay for those programs.

For example, it would also be a wonderful act of compassion, no doubt, if the government bought every US citizen a new car ("Cash for Clunkers" on steroids), but that would raise the question: How would the government pay for this? Or the government could buy us all a new house (that would certainly help underwater homeowners). But how would the government pay for this? Or the government could simply provide permanent unemployment benefits for everyone so that no one would ever have to work again. But how would the government pay for this?

In Democrat la la land all the wonderful benefits of compassionate social programs simply materialize for free. It's as simple as just taxing the rich more or borrowing more money from China. Does any sensible person really believe this is how the world works?

Democrats are children. The addition of Paul Ryan to the discussion brings another Republican adult voice to the table. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has actually grappled with the hard question of how to finance government spending. Senate Democrats have not proposed a budget in 1200 days. Mr Ryan, on the other hand, has introduced budget legislation to the House every year since President Obama took office. Mr Ryan's experience in government finance complements wonderfully Mr Romney's experience from the private business world.

Romney's choice of running mate sends a clear signal that Romney is going run his campaign this fall by wrapping himself in the mantle of fiscally responsible Republicans, like Ryan and Republican governors Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Mitch Daniels. The contrast for the American people could not be more stark. Do they want to vote for the party of Romney, Ryan, Daniels, Christie, and Walker? Or do they want to vote for the party of Obama (with his trillion dollar deficits and 8.3% unemployment), Jerry Brown (with his bankrupt California government, and $100B train to nowhere), the Senate Democrats (who have not passed a budget in years), and the public service employee unions (whose extravagant pay, benefits, and pensions are bankrupting our municipalities)?

It remains to be seen whether Americans are the country of my parents' generation or whether they have become a bunch of spoiled, whining Greeks?