Associated Press
Paul Ryan absolutely hated the Recovery Act. President Obama's stimulus measure that boosted economic growth, rescued the job market, and prevented the collapse of the economy at the height of a global crisis, has been denounced repeatedly by the right-wing Budget Committee Chairman.
That is, at least publicly. While Ryan was denouncing Recovery Act investments in front of the cameras, the VP nominee was also seeking Recovery Act investments away from the cameras.
In 2009, as Representative Paul Ryan was railing against President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package as a "wasteful spending spree," he wrote at least four letters to Obama's secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by The Globe.
The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds -- one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show. [...]
The documents show that Ryan's attempts to take advantage of the stimulus funds even after he voted against them was more expansive than previously reported.
Now, whenever this subject comes up -- and given the number of anti-stimulus Republicans who begged for stimulus funds, it's come up a lot -- I get pushback from readers. The defense goes something like this: once the Recovery Act became law, all kinds of federal funds were going to be available anyway. GOP lawmakers may have been against the stimulus effort, but once there was money on the table, there's nothing wrong with them seeking investments for their own constituents. It's not hypocrisy.
That's fine, but it's missing the point. Stories like these matter because Paul Ryan, among others, has made fairly specific policy arguments: the stimulus couldn't improve the economy; federal spending doesn't create jobs; and in this case, it's wrong for Washington to invest in alternative energy programs.
And at the exact same time, Paul Ryan was making funding requests, in writing, that said the stimulus could improve the economy; federal spending does create jobs; and Washington investing in alternative energy programs is just a terrific idea.
The point is, he can't have it both ways.
I don't care that Ryan, like so many of his Republican colleagues sought a slice of a pie he didn't think should exist. I care that Ryan's principles are a sham -- he thinks the stimulus can help folks in his district, but it's impossible for the stimulus to help folks in yours.
Indeed, Ryan is delighted the economy in his hometown in Wisconsin is recovering so quickly, but the detail he chooses to ignore is that Obama's stimulus is driving the Janesville recovery.
Leave a Comment:
From your link:
"That’s not all. As Lizza notes, the federal government is contributing more than $10 million to a new facility in Janesville that will produce a medical tracer that used to be made outside the United States. The new plant could employ some 150 people."
Bloggers should learn to check on each other instead of putting blind faith in each other. The actual facility cost is 194 million dollars, so the Federal government, as so often happens, will contribute 5% of the total and receive 100% of the credit.
During my morning perambulations around the Internet I came across several articles about the Ryan's family business. Building highways, since 1910. Defense contracts, Chicago's O'Hare Airport, yada yada yada.(All paid for by the taxpayer)
He's worth- along with his "
betterricher half", over $7 million dollars. All is on a congresssman's salary. . .So you mean the taxpayer should get out there and build these things themselves?
Do you know of any times that Ryan has said governments shouldn't build roads an airports?
So...I'm confused. You just blasted a comment for equating the Ryan family with government projects, and getting wealthy off it [ Is that a lie, is that made up, are people just being all jealous haters or what? ] -- then sorta kinda praised the government for building roads and airports, which...is problematic. You can't be all get rid of all social programs on one hand and then be all gimme gimme gimme government money on the other hand, right?
That's not being an upfront, stand up candidate at all.
"A variety of think tanks and analysts have pegged the cost of repairing and upgrading our transportation networks at somewhere between $200 billion and $262 billion per year over the next decade. The White House’s budget envisions spending an average of about $104 billion per year over that time. Ryan’s budget, meanwhile, allocates $78 billion per year. In his summary, Ryan claims he can meet the country’s needs by cutting back on “imprudent, irresponsible, and downright wasteful spending,” though it’s not clear what waste Ryan has in mind, much less whether it would make up the gap." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/12/what-paul-ryans-budget-actually-cuts-and-by-how-much/
Voting for less than enough to even keep up the nation's infrastructure is exactly Paul Ryan saying that the US gov't should not build roads and airports. And again onlyvague claims and promises, and no actual standards of what should and shouldn't be considered ", irresponsible, and downright wasteful spending". I'm sure his family's contracts would not be considered that since he can feed off the federal teat that he decrys so hypocritically.
Here's the thing: if the stimulus was, as Ryan said, *actively harmful,* then yes, of course he should have avoided trying to get any of that evil money!
The problem with government infrastructure contracting, is that no matter how much money you put in the budget, you don't increase the number of firms legally entitled to bid on a project.
Brad Delong came up with a proposal to borrow one trillion dollars over two years for this. Notwithstanding that as Obama himself declared, there are no such things as shovel ready projects. Unlike home construction, where you and 5-10 of your handiest friends literally can either build or flip houses spec, you cannot build or repair roads and bridges. The simplest project will take a year of paperwork before a shovel of earth gets turned.
In larger projects like the new eastern replacement span of the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge, the design ideas began to be submitted in 1996, construction didn't begin until 2002 and it won't be finished until 2013, largely using Chinese Steel
The point is not that we don't need to invest in infrastructure, but that a headline number in legislation won't tell you much about the actual amount of work that is involved.
malheurriverwoman,
The bottom line with people like bb is: government and government spending are always bad.
Once you understand that perspective, his posts will make more sense to you.
As usual, it's wrong to blame the man while excusing the system. Obama wants the rich to pay more in tax, yet he (as a rich person) will use every deduction available. Is that hypocrisy? No, it's the system. You advocate what you want to see while operating in the system you have.
So why wouldn't the Obama/Biden campaign run an ad, showing Ryan's letters requesting the money with a voiceover "This is what Rep. Ryan wrote us about the stimulus."
I can't see how that wouldn't be tremendously effective.
Because it'll only be effective if they ran the ad like this.
Having Ryan's voice overs of him saying how bad the stimulus was. And ow it's just wasteful spending. While having his letters being floated across the screen. And at the end just saying "Really Paul Ryan? Really?"
20 seconds max. And Ryan is tagged in a way that's easy to remember. And not in a good light.
No, an ad like that would be a mess. For one thing, the people who really hate the stimulus are the right-wing base, and they love Ryan. They'll jump through whatever mental hoops they need to jump through to justify his actions.
Second, the Obama campaign needs the Stim to be a plus, not a minus. You can't effectively run against your own policy, they've seen how poorly that's worked for Romney.
Third, from a policy standpoint, we're going to need more stimulus. The Obama administration doesn't want to poison that well and turn people against the idea.
The people who hate the stimulus are already hating it. The GOP base would love it true. But ads like those do not run in Red States. Just Purple ones. And usually it's the purple states that benefited the most from the Stimulus Package to begin with.
Secondly it's not running against your own policy. Because Ryan voted against it. Then asked for the money. That in turn actually helped his constituents. And improved that town's economy. Thus proving that the Stimulus Package did work. And Ryan not only voted against it. But then turned around and used it, to prove it worked.
The fact is. Ryan only appeals to the GOP base anyway. He doesn't appeal to independent voters. Not many of them anyway. So to prove your policies does work. And make him out to be a liar. Is a plus.Is their risk the GOP base would love it, yes. But there is always a risk in politics. But the GOP Base is already not voting for the President anyway.
"I don't care that Ryan, like so many of his Republican colleagues sought a slice of a pie he didn't think should exist. I care that Ryan's principles are a sham -- he thinks the stimulus can help folks in his district, but it's impossible for the stimulus to help folks in yours."
That's the Romney campaign and today's GOP in a nutshell. Romneycare helped his state's taxpayers with their healthcare needs, but under no circumstances should federal taxpayers be helped with their healthcare needs by federal taxpayer dollars. The GOP ideas on any topic over these past few years have been a big FAIL, but when Democratic ideas work for GOP constituents, then it's "only WE deserve the help this brings because WE'VE been out there truly trying to make sure no one else gets any of this."
So how many Democrats (and Republicans for that matter too) condemned Wall Street at the same time they were voting for bailouts and like Maxine Waters trying to channel the money to family owned institutions?
This is why people GO to Congress in the first place to channel money to their family friends and political contributors. (most of them anyway, there are a few like Bernie Sanders who are immune to this)
The "both sides do it" meme seems to be heavily used by trolls.
Just sayin.
There's a terrific analysis and takedown (with a bit of humor sprinkled in) of Congressman Ryan in the "Fryin' Ryan" post at "Grumbles From an Old Grouch" (grumblesfromanoldgrouch.com).
It *is* hypocrisy to whine about something and then take advantage of that which you insisted wasn't needed. That's the very definition of hypocrisy. If Ryan et al didn't support the stimulus package, they should not have partaken of it. The excuse that "it would be there anyway" does not allow them to abdicate their prior stance and supposed honor. If I said I do not support religion no matter what, and then accepted money from a church just because it's offered, I would indeed be a hypocrite.
And we are all supposed to be surprised how numerous members of Congress put both the interests of their campaign contributors as well as their own personal financial gain ahead of doing what is best for the country? Nothing new there. These bums are actually getting elected believing they are on Capitol Hill just to make themselves rich and court favor with major corporations and other special interests. America is being run into the ground because Congress simply doesn't care.As long as they get a few millions, then leave, they're thrilled. Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are blood-sucking scum interested in their own personal and political fortunes. - principled progressive
What is somewhat unique about Ryan is that his family business profits from infrastructure projects AND he gets to brag to his constituents about "bringing home the pork." To do both, and then also decry the stimulus as ineffective and wasteful is just too much.
I must admit that the mitt and ryan don't hide the fact that they are
only addressing the issues and concerns that will improve the lives of
themselves and their fellow elites and couldn't care less about anyone
else.
He wants to kill off Pell Grants and Social Security.
I'm curious as to WHY this hater of all government social programs accepted the Social Security payments that followed on his father's death when he was actually quite wealthy?
(I didn't even know this fact about Ryan till Maddow's program yesterday; the news media has tended to make him seem to come from poverty.)
He's a hypocrite to the 10th power.
and why he has accepted health insurance paid for by the gov't, and his ludicrously high salary, etc.
you're right, the media does paint Ryan as a po' boy, and he's anything but.
Sure he can. It's called lying. He and RoMoney will make a good pair - one lies; the other swears to it. Besides, it'sOKifURRepugnicant! The folks who will vote for this pair wouldn't believe it anyway - unless they find it in the bible somewhere!
True, Ryan can't have it both ways... but I'm pretty confident he will continue to do so.