Sunday, 12 August 2012 00:00

Veep Pick Paul Ryan Is No Conservative

Written by 

No sooner had Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate become known than the world of punditry was abuzz with talk of "Ryanmania." Since mania is by definition an excessive or unreasonable enthusiasm, the label may be regarded as an understatement. For while the seven-term Republican congressman from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee is not yet a household name across America, he does generate excitement within the "conservative movement," an excitement and enthusiasm that suggests the talking heads at Fox News and the dot.com warriors at The Weekly Standard have no more sense of conservative, constitutional government than the cheering chanting crowd of Republican partisans who greeted the vice presidential hopeful in Norfolk, Virginia, Saturday morning.

Like him or not, the one thing politically aware Americans are supposed to know about Paul Ryan is that he is a fiscal conservative, a bold budget hawk. He is, after all, the prime author of the House budget plan (titled "the Path to Prosperity") to repeal the Obama health insurance program ("ObamaCare"), turn the Medicaid program for low-income Americans over to the states and create a private insurance option for Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2023. The plan would also turn food stamps and other federal programs for the poor into block grants to the states, with limits on the growth of those programs. If Republican voters have any doubts about Ryan's commitment to budget austerity, they need only hear the Democrats' outcry that Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" will be a road to the poorhouse for elderly and low-income Americans.

But on the other side of the ledger, Ryan's voting record shows a robust support of big-spending programs to enlarge the role of the federal government, especially when they are promoted by a Republican in the White House. Ryan voted for all of the big-ticket, budget-busting items of the administration of President George W. Bush, including the No Child Left Behind Act and the prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, often described as the largest expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Ryan voted to create the new Department of Homeland Security, including the Transportation Security Administration that has harassed air travelers, while making aircraft safe from shoes, belt buckles and grandma's knitting needles. He voted for the PATRIOT Act, giving government enhanced powers for warrantless snooping into the lives of American citizens as well as foreign nationals. Ryan voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program that bailed out the "too big to fail" financial institutions and inspired the Tea Party rebellion against big government and "crony capitalism." He backed the auto bailout that turned GM into "Government Motors."

And while conservatives generally like to leave wars and military spending off the list of costly "big government" programs, Ryan's record on that front is also troubling. Like Romney, Ryan has no foreign policy credentials and no record of military service to point to in the election campaign. And like Romney, Ryan swallowed whole the Bush-Cheney line on Iraq and supported the decision to invade and occupy that country in a needless war that cost more than 4,000 American and hundreds of thousands Iraqi lives and has added roughly a trillion dollars to our soaring national debt. Ryan's budget calls for no reduction in military spending, despite the continued presence of U.S. troops in some 130 countries around the world, most of which have no bearing on our own national security.

Even more troubling is Ryan's vote last December in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act.  The legislation included a provision authorizing the president to use the military to arrest suspected terrorists, including American citizens apprehended in the United States, and hold them indefinitely, without charges and without trial, in clear violation of due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This year Ryan voted against an amendment to remove that provision from the law.

Ryan did vote against reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, which grants loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments and businesses for the purchase of U.S. products. But his vote last year for the $915 billion Omnibus Appropriations Bill for 2012 went to support further spending on housing, education, foreign aid, and other programs for which there is no constitutional role for the federal government. On The New American magazine's latest Freedom Index, matching congressional votes with the strictures of the Constitution, Ryan's rating for the 112th Congress to date was an anemic 67 percent.

Paul Ryan is, in short, a typical Bush-era Republican, whose selection as a vice presidential candidate is being trumpeted as a triumph by many of the same Republicans who are doing their best to flush the administration of George W. Bush down the memory hole. Republican candidates almost never invoke the Bush name and the most recent Republican President will not be attending the party's convention in Tampa, where Romney and Ryan are expected to be officially nominated. Chances are the name of the 43rd president will be mentioned in rare fleeting reference, if at all. Yet in his choice of running mate, Romney has chosen a loyal Bush Republican and reliable supporter of the programs and policies that made the Bush administration an anathema to genuine conservatives and an embarrassment to the nation.

Finally, the Ryan budget, while including a number of unspecified cuts in entitlement programs, would push overall spending higher than current levels. Despite its optimistic revenue projections, the Congressional Budget Office projects the Ryan plan will lead to a balanced budget by 2040.That suggests a rousing slogan for the Romney-Ryan ticket: "Slightly Less Socialism and a Balanced Budget in 28 Years."

Photo of Rep. Paul Ryan: AP Images

8 comments

  • Comment Link Teno Monday, 13 August 2012 22:03 posted by Teno

    Gatorbud said: "How absurd! Paul Ryan is NOT a conservative! Please!"

    No, he's not a conservative.

    http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/aitken1.1.1.html

    Paul Ryan this guy's supposed o be part of the Tea party?

    -Voted YES on TARP (2008)
    -Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
    -Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
    -Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)

    Paul Ryan on Entitlement Programs

    -Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
    -Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
    -Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)
    -Voted YES on Head Start Act (2007)

    Paul Ryan on Education

    Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.
    -Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)

    Paul Ryan on Civil Liberties

    -Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
    -Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
    -Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

    Paul Ryan on War and Intervention Abroad

    -Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
    -Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
    -Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
    -Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

  • Comment Link Teno Monday, 13 August 2012 21:56 posted by Teno

    Daryl said: "Paul Ryan may not be Ron Paul; but he has an iron grasp of the fiscal mess we're in."

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/ryan-is-a-rino/

    Paul Ryan is not part of the solution. In fact, Paul Ryan is one of the politicians who is even more responsible for the current economic crisis than Barack Obama. Consider his voting record:

    YES on TARP
    YES on Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
    YES on $15 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler.
    YES on $192 billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending.
    YES on prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
    YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks
    YES on Head Start Act
    YES on No Child Left Behind Act
    YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
    YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
    YES on emergency $78 billion for war in Iraq & Afghanistan

    Ryan may even be worse than Obama, because (like Daryl said) unlike Obama he actually understands the various financial numbers involved.

  • Comment Link GatorBud Monday, 13 August 2012 17:58 posted by GatorBud

    How absurd! Paul Ryan is NOT a conservative! Please! All you guys (writers and readers of TNA) better get over it - Ron Paul is NOT going to be the next President of the United States. You can believe that and, if you do, you better darn well get behind and try to elect almost ANYBODY except the incumbent. If you don't, we will be stuck with Obama for another disastrous four years. How would you like that? PLEASE, get behind Romney for President. It's that important!!!

  • Comment Link Gary Hardee Monday, 13 August 2012 15:27 posted by Gary Hardee

    Since Paul Ryan has trod lightly when he spoke to the CFR back on December 3, 2009 and got a positive article in the neo-con National Review, it is hard to believe that he will offer any substantive opposition to the Insiders internationalist game plan.

    http://www.cfr.org/trade/beyond-trade-economic-engagement-middle-east/p20932
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/191215/ryan-branches-out-cfr-speech/robert-costa

  • Comment Link Butch Cavendish Sunday, 12 August 2012 20:20 posted by Butch Cavendish

    @kuudbe

    "(2) History shows that when one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, only bad things happen. If this weren't necessarily the case, there would be no need for separation of powers at all. We would just have to vote for the right party (well, at least, not the wrong party, and hope that leaders don't put party loyalty over their principles too much or too often.)

    Since it's only happened 3 times(out of 30 congresses) on the republican side since D. D. Eisenhower took office(compared to 8 with democrats) feel free to show links as to all those BAD things that happened. If you're referring to the 107th Congress, which encompasses the 9/11 attacks, lets not forget that J. Jeffords went Indie 4 months after GWB was inaugurated and caucused with the dems giving them control of the senate. I'm assuming you would consider 9/11 one of those BAD things that happened. BTW, when exactly did you ever know the dems not to put "party loyalty over their principles too much or too often?" My guess would be NEVER!

    "(3) I would hope Americans demand more from a candidate than "I'm better than my opponent". And that is all Romney ever had to offer.

    My only response to this is "exactly when did you crawl out from under your rock?" Feel free to crawl back under it.

  • Comment Link Michael Skaggs Sunday, 12 August 2012 14:41 posted by Michael Skaggs

    As usual, he's pro-life and all we got this time around. It's like we are the Chicago Cubs, "There's always next time!"

  • Comment Link kuudbe Sunday, 12 August 2012 08:20 posted by kuudbe

    @Daryl Davis
    (1) If Ryan "has an iron grip of the fiscal mess we're in", doesn't that make some of his votes more inexcusable than excusable?

    (2) History shows that when one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, only bad things happen. If this weren't necessarily the case, there would be no need for separation of powers at all. We would just have to vote for the right party (well, at least, not the wrong party, and hope that leaders don't put party loyalty over their principles too much or too often.)

    (3) What basis do you have for saying "Romney likely made compromises in Massachusetts that he wouldn't make nationally, given a majority in both chambers"?. If he couldn't stand his ground in a medium-sized state, what evidence is there that he could stand his ground nationally? What is his ground anyway? Does anyone know?

    It is more likely that Romney would just consolidate all of Obama's decisions. (BTW, use of the words "would" and "wouldn't" instead of "will" and "won't" is quite appropriate, as Romney's presidency is, most likely, only hypothetical.)

    (3) I would hope Americans demand more from a candidate than "I'm better than my opponent". And that is all Romney ever had to offer.

    As Donald Trump said, "Republicans are stupid!" Unless they put up candidates who have the backbone to take an axe to the entire federal government, they will lose and it serves them right. Romney ain't one of those guys. As this article shows, obviously Ryan isn't either.

  • Comment Link Daryl Davis Sunday, 12 August 2012 06:53 posted by Daryl Davis

    Paul Ryan may not be Ron Paul; but he has an iron grasp of the fiscal mess we're in. He's been too loyal to the party while in his leadership role. But what matters now is whether or not Republicans can retake the Senate and hold the House.

    If they managed to win both, and the White House, major fiscal reforms would be forthcoming: the Bain of the Democratic Party. Romney likely made compromises in Massachusetts that he wouldn't make nationally, given a majority in both chambers.

    If Obama wins: http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/

Please Log In To Comment
Log in