The Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan, Part II

Stimulus? What stimulus?

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

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

... if you're a gazillionaire.

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

Snake oil, anyone?

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

Something D-O-O economics? Voo-Doo economics?

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

Dude, did you listen to a single word I said?

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

Share the wealth and the burden or the shit will hit the fan.

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

I don't want to do my part! I just want to poop in the tub.

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

I cast the Mexican wetback out!

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

Don't sweat it, hombre, The Mittbott pays in cash.

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.

Syria and Egypt

 

Special double feature tonight: Syria and Egypt.

Coverage of the crisis in Syria has failed to consider an underlying game-changer in the country. Assad, like his father, is Alawite, a Moslem sect that celebrates Christmas and has never been fanatical. In fact, they have opposed the militants and have cooperated in the war on terror. They also sent troops in the first Gulf War to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The Assads have been dictators but the population generally supported them for providing stability and maintaining a secular society. They have protected the Christians and have not oppressed the moderate Sunnis.

But with Syria moving closer to Iran, the game-changer was the recognition by the Mullahs in Iran of the Alawites as a legitimate branch of Shia. That meant that Syria was ruled by Shiites, an unacceptable situation that fueled the uprisings that have led to a virtual civil war. And while it is true that many Syrians oppose the dictatorship and want democracy, a powerful element in the insurgency consists of militant Moslems who could conceivably take over the country. The Israelis, until now, have had no problem with Assad and no doubt worry that his overthrow would threaten a stable situation and result in a militant enemy on their border. This is now a problem with no satisfactory solution. The Russians understand this and think they can save Assad but the more they become involved the worse it gets. Right now it is fair to say the country is in civil war and the Americans, who keep pressing for Assad to go, are banking that moderates will take over the country. They could be wrong.

 

The Americans pushed for Mubarak to resign in Egypt and for elections that the

We the People... demand No More Fun of Any Kind.

Moslem Brotherhood won with their miitant Salafite allies.Now their candidate for president appears to have won. The power of the president in Egypt had previously been virtually absolute making parliament simply a rubber stamp. The old elite’s argument was that this along with the state of emergency was the only way to keep Egypt secular and to prevent a takeover by the militants who would break the treaty with Israel. Israel would then be faced with an enemy in Egypt instead of an ally which was what it was under Mubarak. With the presidential election going the wrong way the army has staged a coup declaring its power over the president and arrogating to itself the right to declare war. The American military has very close relations with the army and America provides it with billions in aid and weapons. That no action has been taken by the Americans in the face of this virtual coup by the army means that they have given tacit approval in order to preserve the status quo with Israel and restore the sale of Egyptian natural gas to the Israelis.

This could blow up in their face. The Brotherhood did not participate in the Tahrir Square uprising that toppled Mubarak. This time they are unlikely to take the dissolution of parliament and the usurpation of the power of the president by the army lying down. Egypt, like Syria, could be facing a period of chaos. Egypt is heading back to another military dictatorship. Syria could end up the same. Some Arab Spring.

The Contradiction of Paul Ryan

Help for ordinary Americans? Ryan Shrugged.

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

Supply side plans via Paul Ryan.

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.”

Eye Of Newt

Why NOT me? These other guys are nuts.

It seems like a century ago when Newt Gingrich led the charge to overthrow decades of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives using his Contract for America as the blueprint for an agenda that included balancing the budget and term limits. At the time, the Democrats were stale and liberalism an obsolete political philosophy that had hardened into political correctness. What Gingrich did was nothing less than to revolutionize American politics, turning Tim O’Neil’s maxim that all politics was local on its head. Thanks to Gingrich, all politics was now national and he ran the Congressional campaign as if it were a British parliamentary election. The Republicans won and America has never been the same.

But no sooner had he been sworn in as Speaker, he opted to accept a book deal from Rupert Murdock for millions of dollars, violating the rules of the House. Term limits vanished from the agenda. Dick Morris, Bill Clinton’s close advisor, told Clinton to adopt the Republican agenda by balancing the budget and changing the welfare system to end permanent dependence. It worked and Clinton won reelection.

Then Gingrich blew it by closing down the government. The Republicans lost numerous seats in Congress and he resigned. His legacy was his censure by Congress for ethics violations and his party’s defeat. Most wrote him off as finished in politics and it appeared as if he wrote himself off as well. His extramarital conduct became the stuff of legend and he vanished from the political scene, starting a consulting business and authoring countless books, including works of fiction. He married his last mistress and became a Catholic.

When he announced his candidacy for president, most dismissed him off as a has-been with absolutely no chance of winning. As if to confirm this, he took his wife on a cruise in the Greek Islands and most of his staff quit. He announced his intention of staying in the race but this was counted as bravado. He had no money and no organization, yet he had sufficient numbers in the polls to get into the debates, during which he actually sounded sane and he began to attract attention. The radical right, in its quest to stop Mitt Romney, first went with Michele Bachmann, whose over-the-top comments made her seem loony. Then they supported Rick Perry, who turned out to be an idiot. There was the flirtation with Herman Cain, whose campaign imploded in the wake of allegations by women of sexual misconduct. Because Ron Paul opposed aid to Israel, he was anathema to the Evangelicals so his poll numbers have remained in the low teens. Finally there was Newt, who espoused conservative values with sufficient clarity during the debates that he began to pick up support. No one was more surprised by this than Newt himself, who was running in order to keep charging thousands for speaking engagements, receive lucrative book contracts and increase the clientele of his consulting business. It came out that he has made millions as a consultant to the health-care industry and to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, but none of this halted his sudden rise.

This was a “new” Newt, observers said, more mature and stable, whose new-found religious faith made his past personal transgressions fade into insignificance; he had gone to confession and been forgiven.

So far, his poll numbers have not been affected by the negative ads attacking him in Iowa since most people are concerned about the economy and think Romney is a Wall Street insider, a representative of the old GOP Establishment, which the Tea Party despises. In their search for a candidate of their own, they settled on Newt, with his unadulterated support for capitalism.

But is this really a new Newt? Remember Richard Nixon’s comeback, when commentators described him as the “new Nixon”?

No, that's the old Newt. I'm the new Newt.

He was more self-assured and less strident and looked comfortable in his skin. He bested both Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan for the Republican nomination and won a close election against Hubert Humphrey. In the wake of the disastrous McGovern campaign, he won his long-sought landslide and seemed to have more power than any president in the past, including Lyndon Johnson, who had self-destructed.

But this was no new Nixon at all. It was the same old Nixon, devious, dishonest and vicious. Under pressure, he cracked and became the first president in American history to resign. Gingrich is made of the same stuff and the Republicans will nominate him at their peril. But what he’s got is an ability to throw the base raw meat the way no other candidate can. His remarks on the Palestinians show he knows how to appeal to key constituencies of the GOP in a powerful way. It would be a mistake to count him out because, like Nixon, he has a subterranean connection to the worst impulses of many Americans and is unafraid to exploit that connection. Democrats, gleeful at the idea that Newt could be the Republican nominee, should remember that they could get what they wish for and come to regret it.

Bravo, Mitch!

A Good Man Is Hard To Find

In announcing why he would not be seeking the Republican nomination for president, Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels made the following remark:  “I love my country and I love my family, but I love my family more.”  How great!  A sane person without a gigantic ego has a mature sense of values.  Only now do I think he would make a terrific president, one who would not go to war at the drop of a hat because he understands that there are others who feel the same way as he does about their families.

Some years ago, Daniels’s wife ran off with another man, a doctor, leaving her husband and four children to marry him and move to California.  Four years later, she and the doctor divorced and she returned to Daniels, who took her back.  I don’t think this was just for the benefit of their children.  A photo of Daniels looking at his wife at a public event reveals how much in love with her he still is.  What possessed her to leave him in the first place is something she is not prepared to face in a long and most likely vicious campaign. Which is pretty much what Daniels himself acknowledges when he relates that he was unable to sell the idea of his candidacy to his “family”–meaning primarily his wife but also his children since none of them wanted to air all that dirty linen in public.

How unlike the power-mad Clintons, who were willing to discuss Bill’s affair with Jennifer Flowers on television and then get on with the race.  Some years later, Flowers published her account of the affair in, PASSION AND BETRAYAL, which must be the most unintentionally funny book of all time.  I remember doubling over in laughter when I got to the part when he asks her to let him tie her up and she refuses.  Instead, she ties his wrists and legs to the posts on her bed and proceeds… Well, in the name of decency unlike Bubba I’ll stop there.  At the time, he was the governor of Arkansas.  Later there was the business with Monica Lewinsky, the cigar and the dress with the stain.

Meanwhile, Mitch Daniels has managed to balance the Indiana budget without raising taxes,

Yes, I inhaled.

has pushed through education reform and a host of other reforms in his state. He drives his motorcycle to work and acknowledges that he did inhale when he was busted at Princeton and spent two nights in the clink.  His negatives are that he was Bush’s budget director when Bush spent away Clinton’s surplus, creating a gigantic deficit and that he told Bush that the Iraq war would cost sixty billion dollars, when the figure is over a trillion and counting.  Daniels doesn’t apologize but asks that he be judged on what he has accomplished since that time when no one was prepared to tell Bush the truth about anything.

Maybe Daniels doesn’t want to have to discuss any of this either and presumes that Obama will be reelected so is waiting for 2016 when this will all be in this distant past.  If so, that’s a good call.  Daniels comes across as a really good person, even if you disagree with him.  He is not a rigid ideologue; he is a solid conservative with his head screwed on right.  He also has had considerable experience in the private sector, which gives him an understanding of life outside of politics and of what the economy and jobs are really about.

When the smoke clears in another four years, maybe the Republicans will have come to their senses and Daniels’s time will come. If so, by then, no one will give a hoot about his wife’s Madame Bovary episode.  After all, as Flannery O’Connor entitled her greatest and most morbid short story, “A Good Man Is Hard To Find.”