Megalextoria

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.

“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ’s NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he “accepted any money” into his district. Ryan said he did not.

“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.

But as we’ve now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

“The Olympics may be over but Paul Ryan could have gotten a gold medal in hypocrisy,” a senior administration official told ABC’s Jake Tapper. “As someone who spends all day every day railing against government spending, but then secretly seeks millions in funds for pet projects, he is as Washington as it gets.”

In 2009, Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis asking for stimulus money to cover costs on two energy conservation projects in his home state of Wisconsin. In the letter, Ryan said the funds would help create jobs and reduce “energy consumption” in the state. At least one of the companies received the requested cash.

Full article: http://abcnews.go.co … logEntry?id=17023828

Ryan seems like the perfect vice presidential candidate for the people who actually want a true-blue, tried and tested conservative on the Republican ticket.

Except for one problem. He’s an imposter.

Ryan’s big talk of small government bears little, if any, resemblance with how he actually votes.

In national politics, where perception is almost always more important than reality, Ryan has managed to perpetrate one of the greatest scams in recent memory by making conservatives believe he’s a glorious mix of Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater.

Would a supposed Tea Party darling vote with Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Kerry, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders on one of the past decade’s most important pieces of legislation? Of course not.

Yet, that’s exactly what Ryan did when he voted in support of TARP, the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

Oh, and Ryan benefitted handily from that reprehensible vote. He recently snagged $12,150 from Wells Fargo, $10,000 from Goldman Sachs and $9,700 from Bank of America for his campaign coffers, according to campaign disclosures published by the website Open Secrets.

The conservative cause’s golden boy has plenty more bad votes where that came from. In 2003, Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, which expanded government control of healthcare to make prescription drugs an entitlement — and cost Americans more than $55 billion annually, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Ryan also voted for the auto bailout, No Child Left Behind and ethanol subsidies.

He even opposes repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal construction contractors to pay prevailing wages. Davis-Bacon increases construction costs for taxpayers and discriminates against talented non-union workers. As a result of this AFL-CIO brownnosing, Ryan has racked up tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from labor unions, according to Mother Jones.

Even “The Path to Prosperity,” Ryan’s deficit decreasing budget proposal, wasn’t nearly as fiscally conservative as he would have Americans believe.

Ryan’s proposed budget, for example, does nothing to reduce America’s ballooning defense spending, which has doubled in the past decade, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The Cato Institute found that “The Path to Prosperity” only modestly decreases nondefense discretionary spending, does little to roll back the size and scope of federal bureaucracies and fails to actually provide for specific ways to trim Social Security — a major component of Ryan’s cost savings.

At first blush, the inclusion of Ryan on the GOP presidential ticket appears to be a win for conservatives — and a welcome attempt by Romney to reach out to those Republicans who distrust him the most.

However, the facts show that Ryan has a schizophrenic voting record on the issues he claims to care about the most — namely spending, entitlement reform and the national debt. His speeches may make him seem like a Tea Party hero, but his voting record has “RINO” and “unprincipled squish” written all over it.

So what are Republican voters really getting with Ryan? In the end, something that not many of them actually want: More of the same old disappointing Republican Party that is unwilling to seriously address entitlement reform or reduce spending.

Full article: http://www.timesfree … ty/?opinionfreepress

In the last 48 hours, Paul Ryan has been crowned the great hope of fiscal conservatives. If they honestly believe that, they’re more desperate than I thought, because the only way to see Ryan as fiscally conservative is to completely ignore his record.

It seems that the presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee is seen as a fiscal conservative simply because of his budget proposal in the House. His proposal would have balanced the budget without raising taxes, but it was an absolute fairy tale of a proposal, partly because it would have required decades of future presidents and Congresses to stick to it as laid out. Is there anybody in the world stupid enough to believe that’s even remotely possible?

Mainstream political reporters are painting the selection of Ryan as a turn to the “radical right” to placate the Tea Party’s supporters. A writer for Time magazine even said that Ryan was the choice of the “libertarians on the Wall Street Journal editorial board….” (I haven’t run into any actual libertarians yet who are excited about Ryan.)

There’s only one little problem with this narrative building him up as a fiscal conservative or even libertarian. Ryan’s voting record is full of support for things that no fiscal conservative could support, much less a libertarian. Anybody who believes that his candidacy is a win for libertarians or fiscal conservatives isn’t paying attention.

One of the most egregiously irresponsible spending measures of the last few years was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which forced U.S. taxpayers to purchase the so-called “toxic assets” of big banks. Pure and simple, it was a bailout for banks to allow them to get loans off their books. Ryan not only voted for TARP, but he enthusiastically supported it. … Is that a fiscal conservative?

Ryan voted for the auto bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. Is that a fiscal conservative?

He’s voted for Medicare expansion, housing subsidies and extension of federal unemployment benefits. Are those things that actual fiscal conservative support?

In addition, he’s voted in favor of a national ID, making the PATRIOT Act permanent, surveillance without a warrant and No Child Left Behind. He favored keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. Maybe worst of all, he voted for the so-called “stimulus” plans of 2008 and 2009. That’s right. Ryan believes in the voodoo economics of John Maynard Keynes. Is any of this the mark of a fiscal conservative, much less a libertarian?

The idea that Ryan is a fiscal conservative or libertarian is puzzling. The facts don’t support the contention. So why are so many people saying it anyway?

For those on the progressive left, anybody who isn’t on their side is on the “radical right,” so their statements at least make a little bit of sense, even if paying attention to the record would force them to modify their statements. As for conservatives, though, I think it’s purely wishful thinking combined with the irrational belief that they have to support anything and anyone who they see as their only hope against Barack Obama.

Frankly, I don’t see a lot of difference between an Obama presidency and a Romney presidency. Obama has no interest in cutting any spending and Republicans are more interested in talking about it than doing it.

Full article: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/?p=16559