Life is a result of the choices we make. It’s really that simple, they tell me. When Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, selected Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as his running mate earlier this month, he set up a crystal clear policy choice for the upcoming election.      Ryan is seen as a “visionary” by conservatives and has galvanized the Republican Party’s charge for deep cuts in government spending and lower taxes – but any investigation into his plans will show otherwise. As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he authored the 2013 Republican Federal Budget. This budget, at first glance, appears to be the work of a true fiscal conservative who has actually done the math and laid out serious, long-term budget proposals. But under careful observation, Ryan deserves no such credit. What is scary is the degree to which this budget is blatantly tilted against the lower and middle classes in an inconceivably cruel way. More importantly, why should you be concerned about a vice presidential candidates’ proposed budget? Because Ryan advocates a clear proposition: a fundamental scaling back of the role of the federal government. Consequently, Romney has demonstrated that he represents this radical agenda by choosing Ryan as his running mate. So, back to choices. President Obama has released a federal budget that has a far different vision for our country’s future than Ryan’s. Taking a look at Ryan’s tax proposals, he plans on slashing marginal tax rates by more than 10 percent for top earners and corporations. Also, Ryan would eliminate taxes on foreign profits of U.S.-based multinationals. The total revenue lost from these tax reductions is a whopping $4.3 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Alternatively, President Obama proposes keeping taxes essentially the same or slightly decreasing them for lower- and middle-income Americans. However, he calls for a rise in the top two income tax rates, each by 3 percent. Also, he would raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends by 5 percent for high-income individuals. By implementing these two relatively small changes in tax rates, Obama’s budget would raise $2 trillion more in tax revenue than Ryan’s budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To be clear, a viable debt reduction program cannot rest solely on the shoulders of wealthy individuals, but it is undeniable that there is a gargantuan amount of potential revenue to be acquired by raising top tax rates. Ryan plans to cut nearly $800 billion from Medicaid and other health programs aiding the poor. His budget also slashes $205 billion from Medicare and an additional $1.6 trillion from food stamps, welfare, federal employee pensions and aid for farmers, according to the nonpartisan tax policy center. Furthermore, Ryan’s budget considerably reduces federal funding to college scholarships, medical research and national parks, while Obama’s budget will invest in areas such as education and critical infrastructure – a viable attempt to spur growth by creating jobs amid a tepid recovery. Once Ryan’s specific proposals are added, there will be $4.3 trillion in tax revenue lost over the next decade, which is partially counteracted by the $2.7 trillion in spending cuts leading to – surprise – a budget deficit. Ryan isn’t the fiscal hawk he claims to be. Although Obama’s budget increases the deficit by a trillion more dollars than Ryan’s budget over the next decade, Obama doesn’t purport to be reducing the deficit. He is much more concerned with creating economic growth and tackling the unemployment rate. Don’t get me wrong – we do eventually need to come up with pragmatic solutions in tackling our long-run budget deficits, but now is not the time. It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who said “the boom, not the slump, is the time for