Paul Ryan calls himself a deficit hawk but one look at his voting record during the Bush years shows he was not. Ryan voted for bills that resulted in federal spending increasing by 50 percent, the size of the government growing by 33 percent and our debt increasing by 89 percent.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan tout the Ryan Budget as evidence of the Republicans' desire to reduce the size of government, cut spending and balance our budget, only the Ryan budget doesn't do it until 2040 (best case scenario) per the Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO also states that over the next 10 years there would be no difference to our deficit by doing nothing or implementing Ryan's Budget. Per the CBO, doing nothing will give us revenue of 21.2 percent of GDP and we would spend 22.4 percent of GDP. Ryan's budget would give us revenue of 18.7 percent (tax cuts to the wealthy) and we would spend 19.8 percent of GDP (slashing of Medicaid and other programs for the middle class and poor and turning Medicare into a voucher program). Thus the deficit would be essentially the same.
The Ryan Budget was not designed to balance our budget; it was designed to increase the wealth at the top (the "makers") and to eliminate social programs such as Medicare/Medicaid that help most Americans (the "takers").
Both Dean Heller and Mark Amodei voted for the Ryan Budgets. They supported lowering taxes on the wealthy and raising taxes on the poor and middle class. They supported Ryan's cuts to Medicaid and turning Medicare into a voucher program. Heller voted for the Ryan Budget twice (member of House and Senate) and Amodie once.
The main goal of Romney, Ryan and Republicans in Congress is to lower taxes for the Americans they call the "makers" and to get rid of social programs that benefit Americans they call the "takers," not to balance our budget. Again, per the CBO doing nothing will give us the same results as Ryan's budget over the next ten years with one big exception, the rich will be richer and the rest of us poorer.