By Jay McAninch

Paul Ryan addresses the ATA Board of Directors in Washington, DC, June 28, 2012.

America awoke Saturday, August 11, to find that Congressman Paul Ryan, a seven-term Wisconsin Republican, had joined Gov. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign as the vice-presidential pick. For bowhunters, this was exciting news. Bowhunting is one of Ryan’s passions, along with his Insanity workouts, his family and, oh yeah, the nation’s financial woes. In fact, Ryan has earned the respect of colleagues, the media and most economists as a policy expert. He’s especially renown for his knowledge of the U.S. budget, federal tax policy, healthcare, Medicare/Medicaid, social security and the “social safety net,” entitlement programs many Americans build their lives around.

Yet, if you scan the Internet, read news publications, or watch/listen to cable TV and radio chatter, you also hear details about Ryan’s public and private life. Voters want to know about a politician’s “roots,” after all. As expected, we’ve seen articles about his home, his friends, his early years, his father’s early death, his marriage and his family.

And though disappointing, I’m not surprised some sensational media types spun Congressman Ryan’s work for the archery industry as an effort to give manufacturers undue breaks. Worse, others attacked Janna Ryan, Paul’s wife, who worked as a congressional aide and later for a lobbying firm before marrying and staying home to raise the Ryans’ three children. Still others dug into the congressman’s past and tried linking him to donors and other people loosely linked to scandals, implying guilt by association. They’ve also questioned his honesty, demeanor and bipartisanship; and his relationships with congressional leaders, cabinet members and President Obama.

Finally, any Google search turns up infinite pieces denigrating Ryan’s background, qualifications and legislative skills as reasons to suspect his policies. I’ve also read superficial pieces about him that include empty statements like, “Ryan will end Medicare as we know it.” For instance, Eugene Robinson of “The Washington Post” cast Ryan as a selfish, me-first capitalist who doesn’t believe in community or safety nets for those less fortunate . Dana Milbank, one of Robinson’s “Washington Post” colleagues, scoffed at Ryan’s candidacy and claimed Ryan’s only noteworthy attribute is his physical fitness. And “New York Times” columnist Paul Krugman – long incensed that Ryan is considered an expert on America’s economy – believes the media unwittingly embrace Ryan as an honest, truthful policy broker . Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner, further blames the media for not exposing Ryan.

Meanwhile – though the American people deserve it – I’ve had trouble finding thoughtful, insightful reviews or exposes’ on Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” or his “Path to Prosperity,” a budget framework he passed in the U.S. House of Representatives. Some analysts did reasonable work contrasting elements of “ObamaCare” with Ryan’s budget plans. Others criticize Ryan for specific elements of his plan, such as options for future Medicare recipients and social security beneficiaries. Others, of course, question the tax code’s fairness. However, because Obama hasn’t presented a comprehensive plan for all entitlements, comparisons remain incomplete.

I’m eager for the media to find a Democrat who accepts the substance of Rep. Ryan’s plan and provides an equally sound treatise on these issues from a more liberal perspective. So far, President Obama has fallen far short of the mark; Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the Senate haven’t even offered a budget, let alone a plan. And Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and her House colleagues have only voted against Ryan’s budget without offering one of their own. Worse, what should be an evolving policy debate and ultimately a compromise package has devolved into a name-calling contest with unsubstantiated sound bites, overly simplistic ads and “my way or destitution” hyperbole. And that’s coming from both sides.

I’m also eager to see leaders emerge who insist on conversations at a higher level. Americans must be assured their futures are based on freedom of choice and the liberty to pursue individual interests. They deserve the chance to work hard, take personal responsibility, and secure a future for their families and greater communities. Yes, that includes caring for those who can’t manage for themselves and those who fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

Paul Ryan has spent the past couple of years asking Democrats to engage in what the president has called an “adult conversation,” but Ryan has had no takers. Thus, I think he has accepted the only other route toward change: using elections to force us to hold a conversation about our future. If the November 2012 election causes everyone to stop, read, think and consider what kind of future they want for themselves, their families, communities and nation, then Congressman Ryan will have succeeded, regardless of the election’s outcome.

As President Obama says in one of his campaign ads, we have a choice this fall. Now that Paul Ryan is in the race, we have a choice and we can have that conversation about our collective futures. I’m confident that — if and when people engage in that conversation — we will fulfill America’s promise for everyone. I hope we support leaders like Ryan, who can help us at every turn on the long and challenging road to a stronger America.

NOTE: For ATA resources and news on Paul Ryan, please click here. 

By Jay McAninch

By offering non-English voters help in so many languages at the polls, how can we ensure oral assistance doesn’t influence their votes?

As we start down the home stretch toward November’s election, the balance of power in the White House, the Senate and House of Representatives is up for grabs. With growing numbers of non-English-speaking groups becoming a factor in political races, how do we ensure all U.S. citizens have effective opportunities to register, learn the details of elections, and cast free ballots in this important election?

I ask because I noted a headline from California last week in which the secretary of state announced that voters could participate in elections in Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tagalog or Vietnamese. New Web pages will provide registration forms, voting advice, instructions for voting by mail, and other useful voter information. In addition, oral assistance will be available at the polls to help those who find written materials confusing.

Just so we’re clear, written and oral assistance will also be available in English, but I wonder why we simply don’t require English as the only option at polls. By offering so many language choices, how can we be sure the assistance non-English voters receive – especially oral assistance – doesn’t influence their votes? After all, a fine line separates assistance from influence.

Imagine going to the polls and seeing a Spanish-speaking volunteer assisting voters who don’t speak English. Imagine, too, if you couldn’t understand what the volunteer was telling one of your fellow voters. I oppose voter discrimination, but how can we know if the volunteer is giving the voter helpful instructions or steering electoral decisions?

In the last election, 248 jurisdictions (states and counties) were required to provide language assistance for voting. This included 188 in Spanish, 22 in Asian languages, and 38 in Native American and Alaskan native languages. Minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which have been in effect since 1975, mandate that jurisdictions provide registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance and other materials related to the election process, including ballots in the language of the applicable minority group. The affected jurisdictions are determined by ethnicity figures. Language assistance is required by federal law when more than 5% of the voting-age population, or 10,000 citizens of voting age, are members of a single-language minority living in a jurisdiction. It’s also required when English proficiency and illiteracy rates of a minority group are higher than the national rates.

I believe the language of politics should be English to ensure all voters can read and understand the same information, regardless of how they receive it. That single act would remove any potential for partisan advocates to assemble voting blocs based on language. It would also remove any need for oversight and monitoring to ensure translations provide instruction and information, not guidance and persuasion, no matter how subtle.

Apparently, members of Congress agree, as demonstrated by the more than 700 members who have co-sponsored English language legislation dating back to 1981. The current bill, the English Language Unity Act of 2011, is sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as HR 997, and Sen. Jim Imhofe (R-Okla.) as S 503. The bill has 113 co-sponsors. This legislation would make English the language in all official government activities, including voting. It sounds like a no-brainer, but given today’s politics regarding race and ethnicity, this legislation reportedly has little chance of passing.

Meanwhile, the 2010 census reported 80.3% of U.S. residents speak English, 12.3% speak some variation of Spanish, 3.7% speak a European language (German, French, Italian, Scandinavian, Slavic, Baltic or Iranian), 3% speak an Asian language (Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and languages of Asia and the Pacific), and 0.7% speak native American or Alaskan, Arabic or Hebrew, or another indigenous language. Of non-English speaking residents, 3% did not speak English or did not speak it well.

The number of citizens needing voting assistance is small but, unfortunately, most non-English speakers live in communities dominated by their ethnic group, usually in metropolitan areas like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago – all strongholds of the Democratic party. Will the GOP soon insist on monitoring all such instructions with their own translators? And when party allegiances shift in the future, will Democrats insist on monitoring presumed-GOP translators? As I compiled this information, I became less concerned about voter discrimination and more concerned about voter influence.

Although this issue is sensitive, it will grow in importance as we scrutinize future elections. Minority voting blocs are common topics in the media, yet I’ve not seen reports on what assistance non-English speaking citizens receive at the polls. Granted, monitoring these situations will be tough. When does oversight become voter discrimination in an age where governments seemingly try to accommodate everyone? These days you can get a driver’s license and participate in court proceedings without speaking English. Therefore, without speaking a word of English, you can obtain the most common form of legal identification and gain access to our legal system, where you’re entitled to the same freedoms and rights granted to most Americans.

I fear it might be time to get out those foreign-language tapes so I can protect my future and my family’s at the ballot box.

By Jay McAninch

Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., hunting in his home state of Wisconsin.

For a recent profile in “Time” magazine (“The Prophet,” Dec. 26, 2011), Congressman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., posed for a picture that portrays him not only as a nationally known policymaker, but a proud bowhunter too. The photo shows him in his office wearing the “uniform” of the U.S. Congress – a dark suit – while holding a hunting bow at full draw. The photo’s message is clear and unflinching: Paul Ryan is a congressman, statesman and policymaker at our nation’s highest levels; AND he bowhunts. To my knowledge, that’s never happened before.

I’m aware of many VIPs, celebrities, musicians, political figures, professional athletes, and stars of the screen and stage who enjoy bowhunting. I’ve seen autographed pictures of many of them adorning walls of archery shops and manufacturers’ offices. The autographs often include a thanks for a hunt or the privilege of shooting some of the best equipment in the industry. Yet as I watch this list grow over the years, I don’t recall anyone of Paul Ryan’s stature making public statements in the mainstream press about their support for bowhunting. In fact, take just one look at Paul Ryan holding a bow at full draw, and you know he’s the real deal; a hardcore bowhunter. He’s not just another politician holding a gun or bow for the first time – maybe the only time – while currying favor with our country’s large hunting bloc.

No, Paul Ryan posed for this photo of his own volition, and in a low-key way. He didn’t ask a manufacturer for the bow or “fish” for an invitation to a great hunt somewhere. The truth is, Congressman Ryan has never asked for anything from the archery industry when he’s done things for bowhunting. Nearly 10 years ago, he led an effort to change the tax on arrows and level the playing field for arrow manufacturers, especially those making arrows on American soil. For that, he took nothing from us except our thanks and gratitude.

Ever since meeting Congressman Ryan in the late 1990s, I’ve noticed he pays for everything he requests. In fact, he insists on paying. This struck me as unique, even unusual. That’s because I’ve often seen professional athletes, singers and celebrities EXPECT to receive equipment just for showing up at an event. This contrast is especially noteworthy, given that our society assumes all politicians are on the take.

When I look at “Time” magazine’s photo of Congressman Ryan at full draw, here’s what I think: Every bowhunter should be proud to talk about bowhunting at home, at work, in the community and among peers in their profession. How many of us talk about bowhunting when we’re with lawyers, accountants, bankers and business people while working or socializing? How many of us talk about bowhunting with our kids’ teachers, school administrators, or those directing our kids’ recreational programs? Do we talk about bowhunting with our pastor or priest, neighbors, community leaders, aldermen, mayor or other politicians? Do we even share our love of “stick and string” with family and friends? If not, why? Do we fear bowhunting doesn’t “fit” or is somehow socially unacceptable?

Perhaps the best part about Congressman Ryan’s bow-shooting appearance in “Time” is that it’s done with pride and self-confidence. In the magazine’s accompanying text, there’s no defensiveness or “in your face” aggression we sometimes see when other bowhunters step into public forums. If any well known folks ever do express their love for archery or bowhunting, few do it so professionally and with such grace and dignity. Ryan assumes folks get that bowhunting is an activity he enjoys and one that is part of his precious few hours of personal time. He doesn’t make bowhunting a crusade or an activity that is right for everyone. In “Time”, he simply showed the world that bowhunting is an important part of his life – just like his family and his work to put American on the path to prosperity.

Pretty cool.

You can’t control the context around you, but you can create a certain order that‘s reassuring.

By Jay McAninch

Context. Funny how every issue you think about, every concern you address, everything it seems has to be considered in context. Better said, everything that impacts our lives does seem connected to the conditions that are layered around us. Day in and day out, all of our decisions – those that are critical to our homes and families and those that influence our work – are best made in context.

In the coming months, context is what I’d like to talk about in this space. Blog posts may consider context from within the archery and bowhunting industry, the shooting and hunting segment, the entire outdoor market, or context provided by the US or global economy. We’ll take a look at the context that surrounds the political vortex I see here in Washington, DC or the context in the states and on Main Street where many of you operate.

The problem when anyone deliberates about the context surrounding their situation is that it complicates things. Rest assured, I understand the notion that keeping things simple makes decisions, choices and, just about everything, much easier. In the beginning, God created heaven and earth … and everyone lived happily ever after, right?

Unfortunately, in our business, decisions made by state agencies about bowhunting impact you. Decisions made by the IRS or US Fish & Wildlife Service about Federal Excise Tax impact you. Decisions made by the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the acceptable lead levels in sporting equipment impact you. Decisions made by OPEC about fuel prices that change shipping costs impact you. Decisions made by Congress about healthcare, taxes and the national debt and budget impact you. Decisions made by the President’s agency staff about federal worker compensation, the extension of benefits to any American, interest rates, subsidies for grain prices, foreign aid to the Middle East and monetary fund support for European countries all impact you.

If those matters concern you and you’d like to hear my point of view, then I’m going to offer it — for better or for worse — in this space. I hope you’ll find my thoughts helpful or, at the very least, informative and stimulating. I also hope you’ll be motivated to respond by email or in the comment box below, which will create a dialogue that might help us all deal with the context that surrounds us.

Finally, you’re likely thinking, Why? Why bother with all these frustrating and complicated issues that surround us? Because context matters. Addressing context can have a calming impact on you and can reinforce the decisions you make. Considering the context around you thoughtfully is all part of going through life with your eyes wide open and living life to the fullest. Sure, you can’t control much of the context around you, but you can create a certain order that‘s reassuring. And that might just lead to a level of confidence that makes all the hard work and sacrifice worth it. I’m looking forward to it and I hope you’ll join me.