Who is Paul Ryan and why do all these people hate him?
I never intended for this blog to become Paul Ryan headquarters. Nor do I intend that to happen now. In fact, most of what I’ve written about him here has been in the context of his 2012 run as Vice President on the Romney ticket. Back then (at least at the beginning) he was somewhat of a conservative favorite, and supposedly evidence that Romney had veered somewhat to the right with his VP pick.
Those days—ah, those days are gone. Since then (and I’m not sure when it began, but it wasn’t too long after that) Ryan has sunk like a stone with two groups: conservatives, and Trump supporters (not the same thing). The left, of course, can’t stand him; that’s a given. So seeing both right and left against him, I have long tried to ferret out the truth.
Yeah, I know. Good luck with that.
But I continue to attempt it, because I try not to judge people on the spin given them by left or right. Saturday’s post about what Ryan had really said about suing Trump was a good example of my efforts.
Now, this present post isn’t going to be a biography of Ryan. It isn’t even going to be a summary of what he has done or hasn’t done in the seven and a half months since he became Speaker. Those things would take a lot longer than the hour or so I’m going to spend writing this. But I want to discuss a comment that “snopercod” made today, because I think it’s both typical of attitudes towards Ryan and understandable as well, given the sort of coverage Ryan has had:
Neo asks:
“”¦did you ever wonder how much of your Ryan-hate was based on media spin and how much on reality?”
I ask that question to myself all the time. When confronted with an epistemological question, though, I always look at the results to determine who is lying to us. So far, Ryan is found wanting when it comes to results. The federal budget is still going up, Koskinen still hasn’t been impeached, and the U.S. is still spending Billions to build power plants in Africa and wind farms in Vietnam (corporate welfare for GE). I would love to change my assessment of Ryan; All it would take would be ONE small victory for conservatives ”“ just one little thing that I could look to as a sign that Ryan isn’t just another Boehner. Like Lawrence Ferlinghetti, I Am Waiting.
At the outset I will remind everyone that Ryan has been in office for not-quite eight months, and Congress is a notoriously slow engine. In addition, for bills to actually pass and become law, there’s a Senate that must be gotten through, as well as a Democratic president named Barack Obama with a veto pen and a phone—as he seldom tires of reminding us.
But let’s get back to snopercod’s comment. There are several issues here. The first is what snopercod would like to see Ryan have done—that is, snopercod’s agenda. On that, I will take the things he mentioned (which I’m sure are not inclusive) point by point. On the budget, I previously wrote this post—containing links that I’d recommend following or you won’t understand what I’m talking about—about Paul Ryan’s explanation for what happened with the budget and what some of his plans are for the future. I wonder how many people are familiar with what he said then, rather than what the MSM or many blogs on the right wrote about what they think he did or didn’t do and why.
Then there is the agenda for impeaching Koskinen, which is going forward. Probably not at a pace desired by those who would like Congress to be a speedier venue, but it’s going forward nevertheless, at least in the House (where Ryan resides). Instant gratification is not the sort of thing in which Congress specializes, and I repeat that Ryan has only been in office for a little less than eight months.
As for African power plants and Vietnamese wind farms, those are issues about which I know nothing and don’t have time to look into at the moment. But I think we can agree that dealing with whatever problems that might be involved with them has not been a big priority for the right within the last eight months, and Ryan is not a miracle worker who needs to quickly fulfill every single item on a particular voter’s legislative agenda.
Which brings us to the second big issue: what has Ryan actually accomplished? I wrote at length about one accomplishment that most people don’t even know about (or which they have minimized, if they do know about it), the fact that Obamacare was repealed by both House and Senate and then the repeal was vetoed by Obama.
In addition, Ryan’s plan is to vote on an Obamacare replacement. Now, coming up with a replacement plan is not easy, to say the least, and it’s been delayed much longer than I’d like to see. But that’s not surprising, either, considering the complexity of the issue and its contentiousness even among Republicans—and again, remember that Ryan has been in office not quite eight months. At any rate, yesterday this announcement was made:
Ryan and several key House committee chairmen believe they have finally come up with a concept and plan that could be used as the basis for the replacement of Obamacare, provided of course that Donald Trump succeeds President Obama in the White House and the Republicans can retain control of the House and Senate in the November general election.
The new plan set for release this week reportedly will include a refundable tax credit that could be used by low and moderate-income families or others who don’t have the benefit of employer-provided coverage to purchase health care insurance in the private market. One version getting a lot of attention provides a universal tax credit adjusted by age, so that the older you are the bigger the tax credit.
The proposed GOP tax credit would mark a significant departure from the refundable credit currently available under Obamacare, which is based on a sliding income scale and can only be used to subsidize the premiums on health care insurance plans purchased within state and federal Obamacare exchanges.
The proposal would also raise billions of dollars in revenue for the new program by imposing a cap on the federal tax exclusion on employer-based health insurance. Currently, premiums paid for employer-sponsored health insurance are excluded from taxable income. That reduces the amount that workers owe in income and payroll taxes by about $250 billion a year. The House Republican plan would substantially cut into that major tax break.
Read the whole thing if you’re interested. But it’s just a preliminary report, so wait till next week to see the actual proposal as announced (assuming, of course, that is is announced). My point is that this represents a lot of effort and must have been difficult and time-consuming to iron out, but that whether you approve or not it’s something that’s been going on under Ryan’s watch.
If you want to see other bills that have been passed, it’s not easy. There haven’t been many comprehensive articles on that, so you have to go to something like this site and try to separate the wheat from the chaff, knowing that for the most part the vast majority of bills passed by the House are going to be about something minor. But how many people have actually tried to find out—not relying on the MSM or blogs—what has been done under Ryan so far and what hasn’t? Very few, I’d imagine, because it takes way too much time and effort.
Which brings us to a third issue: future plans. How many people have familiarized themselves with Ryan’s detailed and oft-laid-out plans for future legislation? Probably not many, because it’s long and bor-ing to do so. But if you care to see what he’s got in mind—or at least what he says he’s got in mind—go here and start reading.
A lot of people, of course, have already soured on Ryan and don’t want to hear what he has to say. They have already dismissed him because he didn’t do what they wanted, and he didn’t do it fast enough, and what he did (repealing Obamacare, if they even know that happened) didn’t matter because Obama vetoed it. So I’d ask them a question: what should he have done, and not just “what” but “how”? How might he have accomplished it, and please be realistic? If your answer to everything is “shut down the government”—well, I don’t think that would have worked, because I think it would have only resulted in greater Democratic power and popularity and an Obama stonewall. That’s an old question that we can debate ad nauseam (and have already), so I’m just acknowledging it here without getting too deeply into it.
What I see is that people are impatient, annoyed, frustrated, all too ready to lay blame. And I’m not saying there isn’t blame to be laid. I’m frustrated and annoyed, too. My goal here—as I’ve said before—is not to be some Ryan shill. But if I’m going to blame him—and I’m willing to do so because I have no dog in the Ryan race—I want to do so for reasons that are actually based on reality rather than propaganda. I see so much propaganda from left and right, and so much vulnerability to it (yes, the right is just as vulnerable as the left), that I feel compelled to at least raise these questions.
I’ll give the last word to The Atlantic, which published an article somewhat related to this theme. The Atlantic staff is hardly a bunch of Ryan-supporters, of course, but they make a good point here, and not just about Ryan but about a lot of Republicans this election cycle:
Except that, thus far, Ryan’s beloved agenda””the one his wonkish heart has been dreaming of and laboring over and counting on to define his speakership””has been something of a PR bust, yet another sad casualty of this election cycle’s Trumpsanity.
Just look at what happened at the rollout of the agenda’s first plank: Ryan’s pet anti-poverty plan. The speaker and seven colleagues crossed the Anacostia River to commune with the impoverished, overwhelmingly minority residents from the “bad” side of Washington. But after all the speechifying, the only thing reporters wanted to talk about was Donald Trump’s latest outrage, regarding the Mexican heritage of Judge Gonzalo Curiel. And so the big news to come rolling out of the event was Ryan’s “textbook” racism comment.
“The first six questions were about Trump,” AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokesman recalled to me. The leader’s office has come to expect that sort of thing, she admitted. “Still, it seemed like an odd time to be hammering at Trump.”
For the second rollout (theme: national security), Ryan wasn’t taking any chances. He held the June 9 event at the Council on Foreign Relations, and lawmakers did not take questions from the press, only members of the council. But even then (and despite Ryan’s best efforts), the topic du jour was Trump, and the news stories to emerge focused not on the difference between Republicans’ governing vision and a Democratic one””which is kinda the whole point of the “A Better Way” theme””but on the gulf between Ryan and his own party’s presidential nominee…
There’s more, but you get the idea.
This actually isn’t Trump’s fault, not really. It’s the media, it’s the public, and it’s just the way of the world and in particular of the press. Someone like Trump gets our attention, whereas sober policy does not. Someone like Trump can be easily spun to reflect poorly on Republicans and it’s something people will read, whereas Ryan talking about how he wants to fix things presents more of a challenge. Is there any wonder the Trump news drowns out the Ryan news? Is it any wonder that the Ryan news, when covered at all, is often covered in such a way that it will hurt him with both left and right?
I can’t remember when exactly I grew unhappy with Ryan. But I do remember that it was due to something he did almost immediately after the 2012 election. And I think the triggering event was a sudden announcement of support for amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m rather sick of all the people wo seem to think only in soundbites and don’t even bother to see weter the sounbites are coherent. Ryan is not a dictator. As Speaker, he is more of a cat herder, and people can’t accept the fact tat all the cats don’t want to march in the same direction.
I don’t agree with everything Ryan says, but at least he seems willing to listen to others and try to incorporate their concerns into his policy proposals.
Ryan is a good example of a necessary wonk, the budget expert. Usually these guys are not also the leader but could be. However, it’s easy to get caught up in this and fail to be a leader as well. You are trying to get something done, while satisfying regional, political and personal issues within an intricate legal maze. You end up not understanding how this looks to an outsider. The speaker of the house should never be a budget guru. One technique that was never really tried was to eliminate the Omnibus budget and pass individual spending bills (defense, health, agriculture etc.) within some global targets. Tough to do. It helps if the Presidential candidates were willing to ask the public to give up some perk or grant to move forward.
junior:
There was no sudden announcement of support for amnesty.
Of course, if you consider anything short of deporting every single illegal immigrant “amnesty,” then Ryan and just about everyone else in 2012 (including, by the way, Donald Trump) supported “amnesty.”
This was Ryan’s immigration policy in 2012 when he was running for VP.
After that election, I’m assuming he supported the Gang of 8 bill but I’ve found little on that except Breitbart propaganda and innuendo. I’ve gone into the Gang of 8 issues in general before, and I realize it’s a very heated topic. Suffice to say right now that I can’t find his exact position on it at the time as opposed to anti-Ryan spin (and the bill was in the Senate, not the House were Ryan is).
If you want his current position you can find it here. I have no problem with it, and it seems somewhat similar to Trump’s actual position (that is, if you include touchback amnesty and the like for Trump).
Ryan has also said this about immigration under Obama: “[Ryan] will not bring up comprehensive immigration reform ‘so long as Barack Obama is president’ and, as speaker, Ryan will not allow any immigration bill to reach the floor for a vote unless a ‘majority’ of GOP members support it.”
I happen to think that deportation of all illegal immigrants is a sham, undoable, would backfire, and would not happen under Trump, either. I happen to think that Ryan’s proposals seem fine. You may differ on that. But I also happen to think that most of what is said about Ryan—on immigration as well as many other things—is propaganda by those who would have the right turn on him.
If you’re talking about the Breitbart spiel that Ryan is for “open borders,” that’s garbage. It’s sad what Breitbart (the website, that is) has become.
Again, this is not to say that Ryan’s immigration policy is flawless. He was for expanding the H-1B visa program, for example, when it came up for a vote a while back (and Trump supported an expansion recently in one of the debates—remember?). If you want perfection and perfect agreement, I’m sure he won’t suit you. But he’s nowhere near as bad as the anti-Ryan propaganda would have it.
Neo –
Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact details of what happened. I just remember that it was after the election (i.e. after 2012), and I think it was immigration-related.
I’m not even sure about that last bit, though.
So far as I can remember, Ryan was still well-liked by conservatives through the end of the election. It was only afterwards that people on the right started to turn against him.
On another note, pretty much any time that I criticize something Trump said in front of a Trump supporter, I get a “that’s the media distorting what he said!!1!” response in defense of Trump. I found it hilarious the other day when you put up your post that laid out a strong argument that Ryan – a favorite punching bag of many Trump fans – had that happen to him.
junior:
While you were writing your comment just above this, I was adding a bit to mine. So you might want to take another look at it.
One thing to note is that many people who don’t like Ryan can’t really remember exactly why, or where they got their information. That’s how propaganda works—it seeps into the brain. I’d be curious what it was—I strongly believe, based on what I’ve seen, that there was a concerted effort by the MSM and by some on the right to make people hate Ryan. It’s worked.
I would not for one minute want to be a member of the House, let along its speaker. There’s a June 8th piece at The Hill that gives a good taste of how things work there — an excerpt:
ann:
Most people haven’t a clue what members of Congress are up against when they try to get something passed.
Neo –
I know that a lot of blog-frequenting conservatives would take exception with the “Getting Right with the Law” section of the link that you provided to Ryan’s website, particularly the section at the very end in bold. You can argue over whether deporting them all is practical (one thing that I liked about Romney’s plan was that it was about convincing the illegals to leave voluntarily), but there are a lot of vocal people who are pretty much zero tolerance on this point. And they’re the kind of people who are loud enough and persistant enough to drag others along with them.
Neo:
About that “concerted effort” to make people hate Ryan — the Democrats have been all over it, starting with Nancy Pelosi out front saying how he “gave away the store” on the omnibus bill he’d inherited from Boehner.
junior:
No doubt a lot of people wouldn’t like some of what Ryan espouses.
My point is that they don’t even bother to find out what he actually espouses and what is a propagandist lie about him. And the Trump supporters ignore it when Trump espouses the very same things as Ryan, which he often does by backtracking and then backtracking again, covering all bases.
Ann:
Yes, the Democrats are very good at manipulating the anger of GOP voters to the benefit of Democrats.
Neo, you pretty well summed up the problem with the American electorate in the 21st century. Ignorance of how our government is intended to function; impatience with how it does function; reliance on easy to obtain information–which so often is false and self-serving for one entity or another; insufficient interest in becoming an informed and engaged citizen. Not to mention the segment that is purely selfish and only interested in what the government will give. Did I miss anything?
Seemingly never occurs to some critics that those aspects which cause them so much angst are exactly the protections that were designed into the system. Sure, the government can move quickly when the Administration puts on the pressure, and the Congress abdicates its role. Then we get programs such as Obamacare.
Junior, I would feel bad about singling you out; except that you did it yourself after Neo’s well researched and exhaustive discussion of what Ryan has done, and not done, said, and not said. So, you cannot remember what he did that pissed you off (sorry, but I can’t think of a more appropriate characterization). You just know that you don’t like Ryan for some reason, or other.
Oldflyer – Crazy thought: maybe the problem isn’t that people have suddenly become ignorant of the complexities of the system, but that people suddenly think they’re not ignorant. As a society we think that we’re equal of scientists because we read a Wikipedia article, we’re experts in legislation after listening to talk radio, et cetera. I don’t really know where I’m going with this thought. But we all seem to be acting like the Chris Elliot character on Letterman, smug and condescending but without any basis for being so.
Oldflyer:
Actually, even Obamacare took quite a while to enact. And remember how Scott Brown was elected to stop it, and how the Democrats came up with reconciliation?
I am rather neutral when it comes to Ryan. I thought it showed a reluctant form of ‘bravery’ for him to agree to the Speakership.
Oldflyer:
“You just know that you don’t like Ryan for some reason, or other.”
Neo quoting snopercod:
“Ryan is found wanting when it comes to results.”
It’s like being a fan of a sports team. We can fathom only a fraction of the operational mechanics, as much as we grouse about the team and the sport and the flood of information and ostensible expert commentary about it in the public discourse, but in the end, we judge the wins and losses. Fan pressure for wins, which motivates the team to win, also, when combined with fan misunderstanding of the operational mechanics, can adversely affect the process needed to build a perennially winning team.
A team’s fans can be patient and informed, but they need to be mollified with enough tangible wins that are sufficiently understood to be building blocks in the context of the big picture.
Which goes to a main point of this post. Republicans (and conservatives) need to radically upgrade their competitiveness in the critical Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game, where narrative is elective truth while the actual truth is just a narrative that must be competed for like any other in the arena.
Anyone aware of the 2013 meeting with Luis Gutierrez and their mutual endorsement of open borders? Has Paul Ryan learned anything since grade school? I happened to run into his grade school teacher in Janesville a few years ago. Her nickname for him was Eddie Haskell. Trump is probably too scary for Ryan to comprehend.
McHenrybob:
I see the Breitbart/Conservativetreehouse forces have arrived to peddle their usual conspiracy theories about Ryan and Gutierrez. Yes, I read about all the “secret plots.” And here you come, no doubt knowing everything about Ryan’s school teacher! I bet you went to kindergarten with him, too, and can tell us all the dirt on that.
This is exactly what I mean about the right trying to destroy Ryan. Funny thing how they use the techniques that we’ve become so familiar with from the left. If you’re even on the right at all–
Why don’t you give us a refresher course in Romney’s dog on the roof and teasing someone in prep school, too?
I already said in that post that I’m assuming Ryan supported the Gang of 8 bill, by the way, although we don’t have much on record about it because he’s in the House and it never came to that.
Last time you were here commenting was to try to take down Carly Fiorina way past the time she was already out of the running. Is attacking Republicans your specialty? Actually, your Fiorina comment was around the time Cruz was about to pick her as his VP, so your motive was probably to take down Cruz, come to think of it.
The attacks on Ryan made by “conservatives” are irrational. Mr Ryan is the most conservative Speaker of the House in at least 60 years.
ANY replacement of him will be substantially LESS conservative (Nancy Pelosi, anyone?).
The budget deficit this year is less than half of what it was in the first three Obama years, where the appropriations were controlled by the Democrats. There is NO Obamacare, or Stimulus, or Dodd-Frank even being talked about.
Mr Ryan has developed important long-term goals, working with a wide range of members of the House and the general public. He is one of the most intelligent and well-informed members of the Congress (nobody in the Obama administration comes anywhere near his knowledge).
Ryan does not find djt scary in the way you imagine Mchenrybob, he and a host of others find the donald ‘scary’ in terms of his potential destruction of not only what I consider real conservatism, but even gope conservatism lite. Nominate the donald, Gozar the Keymaster, hushering in the reign of the Destructor, aka the Shrew Queen. The so called alt-right own this, welcome to permenant residence in mommy’s basement.
I was a big Ryan fan in 2012. I soured on him due to immigration. There are paths forward which feature both 1) no legalization and 2) no systematic deportation. I believe that we are better off making no changes at all than making any changes which include a pathway to citizenship. Any compromise where restriction of immigration in exchange for a one time pathway for current illegals will never be respected by the establishment nor will the next wave of illegals consider it to have been the last chance. The compromise will only encourage the next wave.
so why doesn’t talk about that, honestly the gope majority, talk as if they are in the minority, if you don’t like trump’s plan, propose one that works better,
From Ryan’s website :
“Fourth, we need to give people a chance to get right with the law. We should welcome anyone who is committed to America. But we should always uphold the rule of law–and be fair to those who followed it. To be clear, no amnesty should be provided”
This means that he intends some sort of legalization. There will be some sort of penalty or payment which he will say makes it something other than amnesty. Fair enough, but it’s legalization and in my mind a mistake.
more:
“High-Tech Visas: … American employers worry they will have a shortage of high-skilled workers…”
The shortage of high tech workers is largely a myth. American employers worry that they will have a shortage of workers willing to work for shrinking salaries.
“…. But, to make sure American workers get a fair shot at these jobs, we should require sponsors of foreign workers to complete labor certifications to ensure that foreign workers are not displacing equally qualified American workers. ”
They already have to complete certifications and they are largely false. Anyone think that the establishment will ever hold employers accountable?
Look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
Look to the king/queen makers..
Evening news features 4 times as much negative coverage of Trump than Clinton
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/evening-news-features-4-times-as-much-negative-cov/
no sooner did that come out than other stories showing the opposite had to be written..
so how did media and persuasion work on Ryan what did they show, focus on, ignore, or even take the public eye off of.
the biggest thing i saw with the most effect was the threat to sue trump and no threat to sue obama for more egregious things (in the public that saw it that way)
once the new taint of the establishment is there, then there is no saving you, people are that fed up.
The media coverage of this Donald Trump-Paul Ryan summit is totally ridiculous
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/the-media-coverage-of-this-donald-trump-paul-ryan-summit-is-over-the-top/
last sentence of the article:
Either that, or there’s really nothing else happening in the world.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ryan is out on both sides cause he didnt do what either side wanted, rspecially the elites that orchestrate the way things work… (and get the kind of effect thats in the first article as to how much time is on a candidate that then governs much of how you think you perceive someone! as well as the kinds of persuasion that is written about here. How to Un-Hypnotize a Rabid Anti-Trumper http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146157026376/how-to-un-hypnotize-a-rabid-anti-trumper )
Sorry but I can’t buy the he’s really trying but it’s complicated… argument. I smell a rat and I realize that’s not proof. And if time proves otherwise, I’ll happily admit to being wrong about the man.
Any Republican who supported the Gang of Eight bill, either directly or indirectly favors open borders. There’s not a Republican who doesn’t know what the Democrats are about when it comes to illegal immigration. Who doesn’t know that they’ll betray any promise, while working to undermine enforcement of any provision that seeks to lessen illegal immigration.
I continue to strongly suspect that the GOPe intends to pursue Hispanic voters as a replacement for their increasingly disenfranchised conservative base. And I suspect that Ryan is actively involved in that effort.
My dream policy: 1.Close the borders. Stout walls at key areas, drones, and as many border control agents as necessary. Shoot to kill any who manage to get across. Yes, that is not PC, but invaders, without regard to age or sex, are invaders. Shoot 1000 to discourage 1,000,000. 2. A six month peiod for illegals already here to come forward.and undergo In depth background checks. If illegals have no criminal record, have not received any form of welfare, they can stay and apply for green cards but are forever, including their children, never allowed to seek citizenship. 3. Any illegals who do not come out from the shadows during the 6 month grace period must face immediate deportation when detected and a death sentence if they are caught reentering. Tough love.
Art,
The evening news has a hit piece on Trump every night and never says anything directly negative about her. The only time negativity is directed at her is when they show a very brief clip of Trump criticizing her and, who would believe anything a racist says?
It’s far worse than a 4 to 1 ratio.
parker,
Without regard to age? I can’t agree to killing children.
Death sentence for reentering? Sure. Drones are fine too. I still say eliminating benefits and going after the employers is the way to self-deportation. Then build a wall where it makes sense.
GB.
Kill children? How many die by abortion? How many are raped/murdered everyday. IMO, anyone, without regard to age, attempts to enter the USA illrgally must be dealt with the harshest terms.
My grandchilern require nothing lrss.
Geoffrey Britain:
Donald Trump supported the Gang of 8 proposals.
Does he favor open borders?
Note this comment in an old thread on the subject.
Hi Neo–
Don’t feel badly about not knowing about the bill to electrify Africa at U.S. Taxpayer expense; Nobody else does either. Here’s the link: US President Obama signs Africa electricity plan into law. On Feb 1 at 5:05 PM when very few congressmen were present, Mr. Royce (sitting in for Paul Ryan) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, which they did by “unanimous consent”. Have you ever watched how that works on CSPAN? The speaker says “I move to pass this bill by unanimous consent” and immediately bangs his gavel and the deed is done – even with an empty chamber. So where was Ryan…and why did he allow this bill to be brought to the floor?
Now about the wind farms, read: These Two Massive Vietnam Deals Just Inked During President Obama’s Historic Visit Involve GE Technology. Now you might say that this is just a deal between a private company and Vietnam and we taxpayers aren’t paying anything, but you would wrong. See: Wind-energy sector gets $176 billion worth of crony capitalism
Then, of course, there’s FDR’s Export-Import bank that Paul Ryan “rescued” by sticking it into the Highway Bill.
There’s a pattern here and we “little people” aren’t in it. You would think that Ryan would throw the people a bone every so often just to keep us from getting surly. Take, for example, the “Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2” which would loosen some stupid and expensive FAA regulations that add nothing to safety. The House already passed it once several years ago; The Senate passed it twice, recently, and sent it back to the House, where Ryan has let it languish in committee. He had an opportunity to amend it to the Defense Appropriations bill that passed a couple days ago, but he didn’t. This silly game has been going on for years and years now; Almost everybody in the aviation community supports the bill, but Ryan won’t bring it to the floor or attach it to another bill. If I had to guess, I’d say he hasn’t yet figured out how to use it to funnel money to GE or some other major contributor.
It’s clear to me that “We, the People” are always last on Ryan’s agenda; That’s why I don’t care for the man.
parker,
Two wrongs do not make a right. The intentional killing of children, for any reason is always an evil.
neo,
IMO, that is an example of Trump’s “shoot from the hip” inconsistency in what he advocates. Yes, those are indications of a man driven by gut reactions rather than principles and yes, that does disqualify him from the office he seeks.
That said, I will assume he’s serious about illegal immigration until, through his actions he proves otherwise.
It’s that or roll out the red carpet for Hillary.
GB:
“That said, I will assume he’s serious about illegal immigration until, through his actions he proves otherwise.”
So you assume he is serious now but wasn’t then: Gang of 8, hiring practices in his FL resort. That would be the difference between actions and promises (suggestions)? Logical.
OM,
Trump bases his position on self-interest. Until his competitors have to forego the hiring of illegals, he’s not going to sacrifice his competitive position to a (from a business pov) ivory-tower ‘principle’.
I suspect that Trump’s position on illegal immigration, Muslim migration and trade is based in ‘enlightened’ self-interest. As an American citizen, Trump sees all of them as currently composed, as placing him and America, at a competitive disadvantage.
So, Trump is NOT against the hiring of illegals, he’s against uncontrolled illegal immigration.
He’s against importing Muslims because he sees them as a population that in the aggregate is hostile to American foundational principles. He’s against trade policies that greatly favor foreign nations. He’s against a ‘service’ economy, bereft of a robust manufacturing sector.
He’s against these things not out of principle but for pragmatic reasons. And that is why, despite his occasional forays into cognitive dysfunction and hypocrisy, I can assume that he will, in the end, always do what is in his best interest. But that is NOT simply selfishness or even ego driven motivation, Trump seeks leadership of his team i.e. America and that is exactly how I see him, he sees America and American interests as his ‘tribe/team’. To use a sports analogy, he’s fighting to be his team’s manager.
P Ryan is a good example of someone who went to DC with good intentions, and then got face to face with the true nature of evil. It was more difficult than they had perhaps thought.
Neo-
Towards the end of the 2012 election, I started seeing a lot of people who loved Ryan’s “MATH!” type stuff suddenly seeming to realize “wait a minute, this guy isn’t just a’Catholic,’ he actually believes all this stuff!” and start flipping out.
I think a lot of his prior supporters feel betrayed– not because he changed in any way, but because they found out that he wasn’t on board with a libertarian-lite angle.
It’s sort of like when the “I f****ing love science” folks find out that a scientist believes that God guided evolution; even if it has nothing to do with his specialty, or if he believes it was done in such a way that there would be no “scientific” evidence, they’ll be rather vicious in their attacks on the “creationist.”
And here’s another gift from Ryan, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act , which gives the EPA absolute control of everything that we use in our day-to-day lives. Only 3 republicans voted against this power grab. It’s H.R.2576 and the president just signed it. Unbelievable…