On Friday, August 17, The New York Times ran a short article entitled “Ryan Said He Erred In Seeking Stimulus Money.” It related that Ryan now considers it a mistake to have asked for Federal stimulus funds in 2009. The article reports that Ryan had earlier denied asking for money from the $787 billion bill on behalf of companies in his district in Wisconsin. But the Boston Globe confirmed that he had written to the Federal Energy Department requesting financing for two companies to develop so-called “green jobs.”
“No, I never asked for stimulus,” Ryan said in an interview with WCPO-TV in Cincinnati . He and Mitt Romney have both denounced the stimulus as an example of Obama’s failure to restore the economy. The Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus created 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. In a more recent television interview, Ryan said that he did not recall writing the letters. Later his office issued a statement that he had since checked the letters.
“They were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security and Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said in the statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently and I take responsibility for that. Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the president is asking to do it all over again.”
In other words, Ryan was for the stimulus before he was against it. What chutzpah! If Obama lets him get away with this, it will be a pity because it show Ryan to be the total hypocrite that he is. It is astonishing that the media is letting him get away with stuff like this. This guy speaks out of both sides of his mouth just as Romney does. They are quite a pair. When Romney saw Ryan, he knew he had found a kindred spirit in deviousness and deception..
The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan, Part II
The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan
Jesus used the word “hypocrite” with great effect. And it is a word perfectly suited to describing Paul Ryan, much as Jesus used it against the false piety of the Pharisees. The sanctimonious Paul Ryan wraps himself in his Catholicism even as he advocates policies that will be devastating to the poor, the old, and the young–the latter who would be deprived of their much-needed Pell Grants.
Until only recently Ryan spoke of how he required members of his staff to read “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, the book that is the basis for his free market, anti-governent philosophy. Mercilessly attacked by the Catholic Bishops of America for the cruelty of his budget as well as by a prominent priest at Georgetown, who let him have it in no uncertain terms, Ryan turned around by 180 degrees. Now he says that he read Rand’s novels when he was young and found them to be “entertaining” but that the inspiration for his values is Thomas Aquinas. He argues that Aquinas favored local, community-based solutions over those offered by the state. He is now going around the country preaching about the difficult life of the poor. A lot he cares about them. This hypocrite bows and scrapes before Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who plans to spend 100 million dollars to defeat Obama. Ryan went to a fund-raiser at the Sands in Las Vegas to kiss the ring of the man who pulls the strings of the Republican Party. After the now-convicted businessman, Denis Troha, contributed $60,000 to Ryan, Ryan phoned up the Bureau of Indian affairs to tell them that the people in his district supported the casino Troha wanted to build there. Troha now says that Ryan told him personally that he considered the project “inappropriate” for the district. LOL.
Troha pleaded guilty to making unlawful contributions to Bush and to some Democratic office-holders to get support for another casino project. Ryan was not charged with wrongdoing but it is clear that his phone call to the BIA was a quid pro quo for that sixty grand he got from Troha. Is this the kind of guy you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? I can hardly imagine that Saint Thomas Aquinas would have endorsed this kind of behavior.
Ryan is not what he appears to be. He is no clean-as-a-whistle boy scout who is great with figures and
a terrific policy wonk. That is a myth concocted by the media and the Republicans. He is a calculating, ambitious character who schemes with Eric Cantor to bring down John Boehner so Cantor can become Speaker and Ryan can ultimately be president. Should Romney lose, Ryan will hit the campaign trail for the Republican nomination in 2016. Ryan really is a snake in the grass posing as a statesman. Beware.
Romney’s Choice
The Rasmussen poll indicated that only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Paul Ryan, so one might think that this was a suicidal choice. The Democrats are licking their chops. But all of this could well be premature. Ryan will energize the campaign and if he makes a terrific speech at the convention, which I am certain he will, Romnney’s poll numbers will go up the way John McCain’s did after Sarah Palin’s speech. But whereas Palin proved to be a liability, Ryan should be able to handle himself quite well. This could sustain the momentum.
Ryan’s job is to keep attacking spending, something designed to appeal to independent voters who could start to like him more. And no question, spending will be a big issue as the Republicans will assert that it’s the spending and the deficit that are causing the sluggish economy and the eight percent unemployment. Ryan will also keep up the mantra that there should be no tax increases because tax increases hurt the economy. By cutting taxes, he will argue, the economy will grow and there will be more revenue to balance the budget and pay down the debt.
Americans have short memories so the Democrats are going to have to remind the voters that this is
what George H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics.” Reagan’s budget director David Stockman now blames the Republicans from the time of Reagan until today for the economic mess the country is in.
There is no question that many will buy into Ryan’s argument since very few even remember the Laffer Curve, which predicted that a cut in taxes would bring in more revenue. It was false then and it is false now. As for an austerity budget, you have only to look at Britain to see that this doesn’t work. British growth has actually decreased and they are heading towards another recession. If you’re going to cut spending, you have to do it, as Terry Sanford used to say, “under the supervision of a physician.” What he meant by that was that drastic cuts were like a crash diet–you will end up putting all the weight back on. Drastic cuts will hurt growth and lead to a bigger deficit.
But more than this, Ryan is not sincere in saying that Romney and the Republicans will be able to tackle the deficit. He actually favors a dramatic increase in defense spending, which shows him to be nothing but a typical congressman who plays the same old Washington game–give Lockhheed Martin whatever it wants and cozy up to its hordes of lobbyists and the generals who are capable of undermining their own Secretary of Defense. They and the hacks in the Defense Department will go through the revolving door and end up working for Lockheed even as Lockheed executives will end up with important positions in the Defense Department. The lobbyists will assure the flow of campaign contributions to congressmen who, like Ryan, do their bidding. Ryan is not a breath of fresh air. He gives off the same old stench of the Iron Triangle that runs Washington.
Ryan is often praised for his courage in taking on entitlements. But that is also untrue. His plan to privatize Medicare (a terrible idea in any event) will, he admits, not kick in for another ten years. Where is the savings in that? And cutting back on benefits from Social Security and extending the retirement age will for certain be met with considerable hostility. Ryan has given every indication that he is backing away from that position.
Paul Ryan is a phony and if the voters buy his snake oil, they will get what they deserve. The only question is who is the bigger phony, Ryan or Romney? There is a wonderful line from Preston Sturgess’s “Hail the Conquering Hero.” ”The phony aways wins until a bigger phony comes along and then he wins.” But I don’t believe Obama is a phony. He has made mistakes and has his faults. He is a politician, with all that entails but he has done his best to represent all of the people, not special interests. The American people better wise up or they will end up in a worse condition than they are in now.
Ryan & Rand
Returning to the theme of Paul Ryan’s infatuation with Ayn Rand and his supposed adherence to her ideology there are in actuality considerable gaps between them. Even as Ryan calls for drastic cuts to balance the budget and the privatization of Medicare he supports increased military spending. Rand opposed the Vietnam War vociferously and like Ron Paul considered aggressive war incompatible with capitalism. She never would have supported increased military spending and would no doubt have denounced Ryan for his position.
Rand supported Civil Rights and Women’s Rights and said her favorite president was Gerald Ford because of his policy of deregulation. And whilst she said that her basic philosophy could be found in “Atlas Shrugged,” she insisted that she never expected it to be adopted as a practical matter. The most important philosophers she argued were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Is it possible that Ryan has read them? Not likely.
It was Aristotle who maintained that what he called distributive justice was essential to
the stability of the state. He defined it as the ”equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of society.” Without this he insisted there would be social unrest that would threaten the well-being of the well-off. Don’t expect to find anything like this in Paul Ryan’s thinking.
Rand was foremost a notorious atheist who ridiculed religion unlike the Ryanites who use religion as a cover for their ideology as though they had never read the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles which call for the sharing of the wealth. When Rand met William Buckley she told him that he “was too intelligent to believe in God.” Instead of parrying by saying that she was too intelligent not to he cut her off, became permanently hostile to her and drove her from the conservative ranks.
Ryan will never balance the budget by increasing military spending and keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy. His and the Republican position is essentially a hoax. It is worth remembering that Ronald Reagan campaigned on “cutting the Gordian Knot” by balancing the budget. He drastically increased military spending and produced a gigantic deficit whilst increasing the size of the government substantially. Under Bush Clinton’s surplus quickly vanished and here was a new gigantic deficit owing in good part to the war in Iraq and his tax cuts. Under Clinton and Gore the government was at its smallest since Eisenhower. Under Bush the government grew substantially with the Republicans going along with it. Where was Paul Ryan then? Ryan is peddling snake oil and is not to be trusted. Ayn Rand would have been flattered that he makes his staff read “Atlas Shrugged” but would otherwise have considered him a bad joke.
America’s Future
America could have a really great future if it could figure out what it wanted to be when it grew up. Its biggest problem is emotional immaturity. Why so many Americans are so infantile is a mystery. It takes longer and longer for people to become adults and even then many never make it. When a person grows old and doesn’t grow up, he becomes a grotesque and the country is filled with them.
The entire debate over health care is not unlike a fourth-grade food fight. If you look at the players, you can find America’s greatest grotesque, Mitch McConnell, leading the attack. This has nothing to do with politics and economics and everything to do with an infant posing as an adult. Mitt Romney is totally high school. Obama’s problem is that he is the only mature adult in a war of babies. Whatever he does, the kids just keep throwing pieces of their lunch at him. What should be dismissed as laughable childish behavior is treated by the media as serious discourse.
This is not to excuse many liberals who are capable of behaving as hysterical second graders without adult supervision. Challenge any of their assumptions and they go bananas. There IS a Santa Claus and don’t tell us differently. When I outed liberal hero Allard Lowenstein as CIA they became totally hysterical. They have no understanding of the seriousness of the debt and the bloated nature of the government. It’s like telling them the cookie jar is empty when they want more. The ultimate infantile reaction is the refusal to accept the crisis of climate change. The mass hysteria this has engendered on the right is the best evidence of how many babies there are posing as adults. The same is really true about the financial types who can’t make enough money. They will do anything, including wrecking the country, to keep getting the goodies. Out where I live in the Hamptons, the snooty WASPs won’t let blacks and Jews into their clubs. We don’t like you and we won’t let you play with us! The obsession with guns (bang! bang!) is another symptom of infancy.
There was a time in America when fourteen-year-old boys went to sea and became captains. They started businesses and ran farms. Grow up, America! Or you’re toast.
Scalia, Immigration and Slavery
In his dissenting opinion in the Arizona immigration case, Justice Scalia wrote: ”Notwithstanding ‘[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration’, in the first 100 years of the Republic the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens including convicted criminals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks. State laws not only provided for the removal of unwanted immigrants but also imposed penalties on unlawfully present aliens and those who aided their immigration.”
This is extraordinary. To rely on those ancient and hateful laws of the slave South as precedent ups the ante for Scalia’s reasoning. Those laws were adopted before the Federal government made it clear that immigration was a Federal matter. It is as if he has never heard of the doctrine of preemption. Will he next rely on the Roman law of slavery to justify the reinstitution of that institution? But there may be something to his position.
Immigrants from across the Mexican border are often treated as slaves and are paid off the books at a pitiful rate for hard physical labor. Illegal or not, once they are gone, Arizona will be faced with a serious labor shortage. Farmers are already complaining that they are unable to harvest all of their crops. And before long, those anti-immigrant whites who populate the wealthy suburbs of Arizona will have no one to take care of their lawns watered with what is left of the water supply. The cooks at their dinner parties will disappear and so will the numerous other Latino flunkies who make their life easy in Scottsdale at low cost.
Romney is already changing his tune and talking about paths to legalization, no doubt the result of the
vast expansion of his luxury home in San Diego. Who is doing all that work and who will will service it once the construction is complete? Who will take care of the pool and maintain the tennis court? We know full well. One anti-immigration pundit I know confessed to me that he uses illegals at his home in the Hamptons and that he could not do without them. It was Reagan who granted the biggest amnesty in American history, his motive being to provide corporate American with cheap labor and to break the unions. Do the conservatives really want to give all of this up?
They will rant and rave to whip up the racism of the Dumb Goyim that make up their base and then pull a fast one as they did in Arizona by drafting a law they knew the Court would strike down. The last part of the law the Court upheld will fall once it is applied and things will go back to the way they were, have no fear, amigo. Do they really care about the jobs of the lower class whites? LOL. They didn’t care in the Old South and they don’t now.
The Contradiction of Paul Ryan
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan worships Ayn Rand and makes any new staff member read “Atlas Shrugged.” His campaign to abolish safety net programs has little to do with a desire to balance the budget and everything to do with his political philosophy based on Rand’s hatred of the state. How his plan to privatize Medicare will go over in the election remains to be seen. He also wants to abolish Social Security in gradual steps.
Yet Ryan, who comes from a wealthy family, received his college education at Miami University in Ohio, a state research institution. He benefitted from the low tuition that a state-run university was able to provide him. Would he abolish Miami University? Someone should put that question to him. In this respect he is not unlike the Tea Partiers who demand that the government keep its hands off their Medicare.
In a larger context, the underlying issue is what does “smaller government” mean? Does it mean creating a much more efficient government that makes better use of taxpayers’ money or does it mean abolishing the safety net. Libertarian hero Noble Prize-winning economist F.A.Hayek supported Social Security. What he opposed was a centrally planned economy, which is quite different from abolishing Medicare and Social Security. There are ways to increase funding for these programs without gutting them, such as extending upward the income level at which Social Security taxes are collected making those who make their money from buying and selling securities pay Social Security taxes and raising the Medicare taxes on those who can afford to pay more.
Ryan’s position is untenable. He would cut back or abolish essential programs while keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The
argument for his position is the old Republican “supply side” economics that was tried and failed. This is all Ryan has to offer and it will not work. Under Reagan and Bush this approach created huge deficits and this will be the result once again. Obama’s deficits have been designed to prevent a depression and he is amenable to cuts to the budget to bring it under control. Instead of working with him, Ryan advocates policies that will harm average Americans. That, of course, doesn’t mean they won’t vote for it. As Churchill once remarked, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Why Is Spain Called A Recession?
The mystery is why economists and the financial sector keep referring to Spain as in “recession.” The Spanish banks will be receiving a gigantic bailout of over $120 billion to avert a crisis but this will do nothing to alleviate the unemployment disaster that is Spain. Its twenty-five percent rate of unemployment approximates the American rate during the Great Depression and amongst the Spanish young it is far worse, in the neighborhood of fifty percent. Spain is not experiencing a recession. It is in a deep depression with little chance of pulling out of it even if the banks are kept temporarily solvent. No one has any idea where the jobs are going to come from.
Because Spain is committed to long-term austerity, it cannot spend to create jobs so there is no way for the situation to improve. Many young people are looking to leave the country and the threat of serious social unrest remains genuine. But social unrest cannot solve the unemployment problem unless it produces an Argentinian-like solution with a left-wing government pulling out of the Euro and declaring bankruptcy as it liquidates its debt. Spain could give up the Euro, reintroduce the peso and devalue it dramatically to stimulate exports. In Argentina workers created co-ops that have generated jobs and Spain could copy this. With its debt paid off, the government could begin a massive program of public works that would put countless people to work.
Another step would be nationalizing the banks and using the bailout money to help the general population. The rest of Europe would react
negatively and would denounce Spain as a robber. But this would lead to similar actions in other European countries, particularly Greece and then Portugal and finally Italy. The Euro would be over and so would the EU. I have it on good authority that certain investors are touting the stocks of European arms manufacturers in anticipation of a possible war. That’s no joke. It’s happening. AT BAE Systems in Britain, the world’s largest defense contractor, they couldn’t be more pleased
What Young Lawyers Should Do
Many years ago I was seated at a table next to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas at a Columbia Law School luncheon in Washington, D.C. He was an impressive man and looked not unlike Spencer Tracy. At some point, I asked him what a young lawyer should do. His answer came back in a short. “Practice law and go into politics.”
There are numerous young law grads in search of work who also owe thousands in student loans. They have no idea what to do or how to pay back the loans. They need to use some imagination to get out of their predicament. They should search Martindale-Hubbell and find single practitioners in small towns around the country and contact them and ask them if they could work for them, without pay if necessary, to learn the ropes. The older the single practitioners, the better because that would give you a chance to take over their practice when they retire. Get involved in the community and join a church. When you are ready, register in one of the two major political parties. If you are in a red state, register Democratic because there are always people in those communities who want to change things and upset the status quo. Get around, join Rotary and the like.
Then get into politics on the local level where ideology is not important. Learn the issues and appear practical. Go to as many meetings
and community luncheons and dinners as possible. Be sure to have lots of cards to hand out. If the lawyer you are working for still doesn’t pay you, open your own practice with your own clients. Don’t worry about your student loans. You can start repaying them as soon as you start to make money, which you will. People say there are too many lawyers but there is always room for a good one. Small-town lawyers tend to be lazy so be anything but. They will resent you, but so what? Take any kind of case and get to know the assistant DAs so you can plead out speeding tickets.
Get married to a local girl whose family knows lots of people. Be terribly nice to everyone and get elected to some local body. Keep at it and keep your eye set on higher targets, like the state legislature and even Congress. Don’t be surprised is you find yourself nominated for higher office. And laugh at all those so-called successful grads from the top law schools toiling nights at the big firms in the big cities. Most of them won’t make partner and the ones who do will be stressed and depressed. And don’t ever forget that the world is your oyster.
You will need some money to start so ask your parents or other relatives. Don’t be shy. They will be making a good investment.
The Decline Of The Unions
The loss of the recall vote against Scott Walker in Wisconsin gives further evidence of the decline of the unions in America. After the Second World War, the unions were all-powerful, with American blue-collar workers reaching a standard of living previously unimaginable. But that was at a time when America had no competition from the rest of the world, emerging as it did from the conflict unscathed and unchallenged. With Europe and Japan in ruins and China still a backwater, American companies faced little or no competition in the American market. The unions had reached an understanding with industry in America. They got rid of the radicals in exchange for which the workers got what Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL, said they wanted, in one word, “more.”
Even before the foreign auto industry began to invade the American market, hostility to the unions rose in a most unlikely quarter–among young Americans. The union-backed Students for a Democratic Society turned against their benefactors over the Vietnam War that George Meany and Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO steadfastly supported, as did their candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Construction workers attacked anti-war demonstrators in New York, increasing the growing anti-union sentiment amongst the young.
In the summer of 1972, I was attending a party at the East Hampton home of prominent labor lawyer Ted Kheel whose son was, like myself, working in the McGovern campaign that the unions opposed. I was wearing a McGovern button and I found myself confronted by AFL-CIO second-in- command, Lane Kirkland, who would rise to the top position following Meany’s retirement, and his wife Irena, both Vietnam War hawks. They raved and ranted at me, the two of them red in the face, until Kirkland finally stopped. When Irena continued, he told her it was “enough.” I had remained silent. It was a lovely party and a beautiful day and I did not want to start an altercation. But I remember what I was going to say to Kirkland before I decided to hold my tongue. “One day your union will need the support of people like me and you won’t get it,and it will fade away.” Later, after reading Ted Morgan’s “A Covert Life, his biography of labor leader Jay Lovestone, I learned how Lovestone, head of the AFL-CIO’s international division, was a CIA operative whose case officer was James Jesus Angelton, head of counter-intelligence at CIA. That made sense.
The rising new libertarianism amongst young Americans, many of whom supported Ron Paul, comes directly from this experience.
Libertarians are decidedly anti-war and they see in the power of the state the instrument that perpetuates the wars that have produced such uncontrolled federal debt. Many of the anti-war baby boomers came of age resenting the unions for their hawkishness. Across the country, Americans came to see the state and municipal workers’ unions as the reason for the threat of bankruptcy state and local governments face. Salaries of the county police in both Suffolk and Nassau Counties on Long Island where I live are over the top. Property taxes keep rising to keep up with the rising costs of local government. So it should come as no surprise that the unions lost the recall vote in Wisconsin. If the unions want to make a comeback, they need not only to remake themselves but to deal with their pasts. Unless they do, they will become increasingly insignificant, which will lead to the increasing income gap that threatens the stability of the country.

















Connect With Me