Paul Ryan, Then And Now
In all the news articles triggered by the House passing the Republican "American Health Care Act" (A.H.C.A.), one quote prominently stood out. From an article written by David Weigel in the Washington Post came this extraordinary quote:
"Congress and the White House have focused their public efforts on platitudes and news conferences, while the substance and the details have remained behind closed doors," Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), then the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, wrote in a July 2009 op-ed for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "Those members of Congress who voted for this bill already in their committees did so without knowing what the legislation costs."
Back then, Democrats were in the early part of the process of passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), and Republicans were in a snit because they thought the process was moving too fast.
The article also pointed out some more steaming piles of Republican hypocrisy:
To Democrats' surprise, Republicans hammered process issues through the election, promising to never again legislate like the Democrats had.
"We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives," they wrote in their Pledge to America, a pre-election manifesto. "No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public."
That pledge was no longer functional during the A.H.C.A. debate. The final language put up for a vote Thursday had been inked less than 16 hours beforehand.
Got that? Sixteen hours. In fact, they were making one of their own myths come true, as the article also helpfully pointed out:
Many Republicans also resurrected a favorite quote from the A.C.A. fight -- [then-Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, in a March 2010 speech to county legislators, ran through the benefits of the legislation and insisted that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." At the time, the bill's text had been public for weeks, along with a C.B.O. score. That did not dispel the legend.
But back to that Ryan quote. I was interested to read what else Ryan had to say back in July of 2009, so I went looking online for his op-ed. I failed to find a free copy of it, however, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel apparently is trying to cash in on its archives (I found one site that wanted to charge me three bucks just to run a single article search, which I refuse to do on general principles). I couldn't even find the article in the pay site (Lexis/Nexis) that I do have access to. But I did find many other similar things Ryan was saying back then.
So let's do a deep dive into Ryan's rancid hypocrisy on his whole "Boo hoo, the process is going too fast" complaint, shall we? [Apologies for the lack of links, these are all from behind the Lexis/Nexis paywall.]
July 21, 2009
Transcript of the Newshour With Jim Lehrer, on PBS. Judy Woodruff interviews four members of Congress, among them Paul Ryan. [Note: the date of the interview may be a day or so earlier, this date is when the transcript was released, I believe]
[MS. WOODRUFF]: All right, Representative Ryan, Republican in the House....
[REP. RYAN]: The problem we have here is the bill that's being rushed to the floor next week; the House leadership is saying next week we will vote on this bill, no one's read this bill.
This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, has a huge deficit attached to it. This bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will create a new unfunded entitlement that will rival the size and likes of the liabilities with Medicare and Medicaid.
. . .
There is a way to get to bipartisan health care reform, but the bill they're trying to jam through Congress next week... is not the way to go.
More importantly, this is too important to rush this thing through Congress. This is 17 percent of our economy. Let's sit down and do it right. And if they want to make it bipartisan, then you have to have collaboration with the minority, and they're not doing anything like that in the House.
. . .
[REP. RYAN]: Rather than spending next week voting on a bill no one has read in Congress..., I think we should talk to our constituents during the August recess.
I'm holding town hall meetings on health care. We all should be doing that so we can talk to our constituents, get the public to see what this legislation is all about, and then come back in September well informed after having touched base with each of our employers -- the constituents we represent.
Got all of that? The text of the bill has been available for long enough for the C.B.O. to score the bill, but "no one's read this bill." Well, that's really on the members of Congress, since they obviously had had enough time to do so. Also, Ryan admits that the bill won't come up until "next week," meaning he could've spend that weekend reading the bill, if he had chosen to do so.
He also calls for making the bill bipartisan, with a "collaboration with the minority," which is pretty laughable after what we've witnessed him doing in the House over the past month or two.
Two days later, Ryan even tried a political stunt to delay things until after the August congressional recess:
July 23, 2009
Joint press release from Republican Congressmen Tom Price, Paul Ryan, and Kevin Brady, calling to "delay a vote on the Democrat health care plan and declare August America's Right to Know Month."
We all want to fix what's broken in health care, but we need to get it right, said Ranking Member Ryan. Let's get input from our employers -- the constituents we represent -- before we're forced to vote on a thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill.... After hearing from those we serve next month, we can come back with a renewed commitment to advance patient-centered, fiscally-responsible health care reform.
Even after the bill's text was made public, even after the C.B.O. scored it, Ryan wanted a full month to discuss it with his constituents. How times have changed, eh?
The same day, Ryan had an article published in the American Spectator.
July 23, 2009
From The American Spectator, by Paul Ryan.
America is now being pushed headlong into enacting a massive federal government-run health care program. The rush, of course, is the Congressional Democrats' chosen strategy prompted by the Obama Administration's hunger for a big victory. This strategy may be politically expedient, but it is extremely irresponsible, unwise, and unfair to the American people.... This untested experiment with our national health demands no less than responsible public debate and prudent political judgment. Right now America is getting neither.
Rather ironic now, all that whining about the White House's "hunger for a big victory." Back then doing things quickly was deemed "extremely irresponsible, unwise, and unfair to the American people." Now, such haste deserves a keg-party celebration afterwards, of course.
Almost a week later, Ryan appeared on MSNBC (which also contains the only remaining piece of that Milwaukee Journal Sentinel op-ed in Lexis-Nexis).
July 29, 2009
Transcript from MSNBC interview with Paul Ryan.
[CARLOS WATSON, MSNBC]: You wrote recently in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Before members even had time to read the 1,000-page bill, it already has cleared two major House committees and is set to be fast-tracked through Congress in the days and weeks ahead. Those members of Congress who voted for this bill already in their committees did so without knowing what the legislation costs. Before it's too late, let's take a closer look."
Is this a genuine complaint?
[CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN]: I don't think we should pass bills that we haven't read and don't know what they cost. I don't think that is being effusive [sic]. I have already proposed legislation, and a number of Republicans are proposing alternatives. You can look at The Patients' Choice Act or go to my Facebook page and you'll see that there are many proposals that we have put out there.
We want to see health care reform done, but we want to do it right. If you rush this thing through before anyone even knows what it is, that's not good democracy. That's not doing our work for our constituents. What's wrong with going home for August having town hall meetings, listening to our constituents, and then coming back in September and doing this right?
Of course, that was then. This is now, where Paul Ryan's House just did precisely what he decried back then, in stunning fashion. Oh, and to be fair, I think Ryan meant "effective" (or possibly something else entirely), since "effusive" is defined as: "expressing feelings of gratitude, pleasure, or approval in an unrestrained or heartfelt manner."
Misstatements aside, though, let's go through a quick review of just one month of hypocrisy from Paul Ryan, back in 2009, compared to what happened this week:
- "The substance and the details have remained behind closed doors."
[The Republican bill was available -- not just to the public but also to members of Congress themselves -- for less than 16 hours.]
- "Those members of Congress who voted for this bill already in their committees did so without knowing what the legislation costs."
[No committee votes were even held, as the bill was rushed to the floor. The C.B.O. was not given a chance to score this draft of the A.H.C.A. at all, so nobody knows what the costs are.]
- "We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public."
[See 16 hours note, above.]
- "There is a way to get to bipartisan health care reform, but the bill they're trying to jam through Congress next week, which we believe quantitatively and demonstrably involves a government takeover of health care, is not the way to go. More importantly, this is too important to rush this thing through Congress. This is 17 percent of our economy. Let's sit down and do it right. And if they want to make it bipartisan, then you have to have collaboration with the minority, and they're not doing anything like that in the House."
[No Democratic input was ever asked for by Ryan on the A.H.C.A. No collaboration with the minority was even attempted. As for "jam through" or "rush this thing through," see 16 hours comment, above.]
- "I'm holding town hall meetings on health care. We all should be doing that so we can talk to our constituents, get the public to see what this legislation is all about, and then come back in September well informed after having touched base with each of our employers -- the constituents we represent."
[The House is taking next week off, when town hall meetings could have taken place. The vote was rushed through before anyone could "touch base" with their constituents. Ryan didn't schedule "America's Right To Know Month," and he didn't even allow an "America's Right To Know Week."]
- "The rush, of course, is the Congressional Democrats' chosen strategy prompted by the Obama Administration's hunger for a big victory. This strategy may be politically expedient, but it is extremely irresponsible, unwise, and unfair to the American people."
[Just change "Democrats" to "Republicans" and "Obama" to "Trump," and this statement could be said by any Democrat today. What's more, while it wasn't correct back then (it took almost another year for Obamacare to actually pass), it would indeed be correct now.]
- "I don't think we should pass bills that we haven't read and don't know what they cost. I don't think that is being effusive [sic].... We want to see health care reform done, but we want to do it right. If you rush this thing through before anyone even knows what it is, that's not good democracy. That's not doing our work for our constituents. What's wrong with going home for August having town hall meetings, listening to our constituents, and then coming back in September and doing this right?"
[Now, of course, Ryan has completely changed his tune. Now, "bills that we haven't read and don't know what they cost" are worth celebrating.]
As it turns out, while David Weigel's research team dug up an op-ed from Paul Ryan, there are indeed multiple examples of him making the same complaint, in various different formats. Back then, unseemly haste was "not good democracy," according to Paul Ryan. Now, it's nothing short of sheer hypocrisy.
Can't wait to hear what all those constituents have to say about all of this at next week's town hall meetings. If any Republicans are actually brave enough to hold any of them, that is.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hey CW
The Australian professor who wrote this is being viciously attacked in an attempt to discredit his summary using publicly available sources of what has happened in Syria.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chemical-fabrications-east-ghouta-and-syrias-missing-children/5442334?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
His article notes all his source material at the end.
Like numerous academics and journalists who have been questioning the official narrative, he is being demonized in the exact same manner as those who questioned the official narrative about Iraq in 2003.
And, just as a refresher for those who have forgotten (not you CW), the "conspiracy theorists" in 2003 were the government and the majority of the US population who believed their lies.
Not the people who questioned the narrative.
A
Hey gang
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9hPwbc8JZo
Jimmy Dore interviews Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett... he goes off on one long rant in there, but for the most part let's her do most of the talking... for those who haven't warmed up to Jimmy yet... yes, that's a joke.
A
Hey CW
For some reason, there hasn't been much reporting on the lawsuit filed against the DNC in the corporate media.
Here's a short article with an update
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-candidate-over-cigars-in-back-room-e3026730e252
Note the title... if they wanted to, the DNC lawyer Spiva claims they could bypass voters and the results of the primary elections.
He also claimed that the charter and bylaws do not create a contractual obligation.
"There’s no right to not have your candidate disadvantaged or have another candidate advantaged. There’s no contractual obligation here…it’s not a situation where a promise has been made that is an enforceable promise,” Spiva said.
"(lawyer for the plaintiffs) Beck pointed out that the neutrality pledge isn’t only stated in the charter?—?former Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz went on national television many times referencing the charter and the DNC’s pledge to be neutral."
Got that?
The DNC and downer donor Debbie were lying while soliciting donations... AKA fraud.
A
Alto-1
I have found Global Research to be extremely unreliable when it comes to military matters. Make that many matters. Hell, make it most matters that I personally know anything about. They don't understand how systems work, and they don't bother to find out.
Case in point. GR inflated the number of bombs dropped by NATO on Libya by a factor of 4. How did they do this? - by counting pylons on various airplanes and assuming each pylon on each sortie carried a bomb, all bombs get dropped. Right? Simple, logical, wrong.
Pylons carry a lot of ordnance, notably fuel. Moreover, not all bombs get dropped - especially smart weapons...in the 21st century pilot's usually bring them back, except in extenuating circumstances (low fuel, battle damage etc). No target, no drop. The inflation was even worse if you considered tonnage - each pylon was assigned a 500 lb bomb, all bombs got dropped on each sortie. GR turned a very surgical* air campaign of smart weapons (reality) into Vietnam style carpet bombing (fantasy).
This sort of melon headed analysis is routine at GR. GR looks very slick and professional, with citations, but the articles being cited are all too often bogus. GR is a factory spinning conspiracy theories. Don't take my word on this, dig a little deeper, starting with:
http://politics.flackcheck.org/how-to-spot-fake-news-factcheck/?gclid=CN3GtqLX2NMCFQyraQodTNwLng
A leisure service of Annenberg Public Policy Center, which I consider an honest broker. There are many other reputable flak checkers that back them up. Use your Google.
* I hate this term, but it has come to be associated with an economical air campaign where it's pretty close to:
one smart weapon dropped = one target destroyed. Note that not all targets are properly identified.
As some of may know, I've been contacting a lot of politicians by phone and e-mail, with a real letter thrown in now and again.
My own Republican Rep was one of just 20 Republicans who bucked the party line on DonTCare (genius CW). I think he got a lot of mail on this. He's getting a nice letter, congratulating him on his reasoning skills and courage. It will also suggest that he become more courageous... ditch the GOP and become an Independent... if wants my vote next time.
I am groot.
this sort of political hypocrisy reminds me of the way footballers on the losing side tend to cry to the ref that the other team is time-wasting, yet as soon as they're on the other side of the scoreline the same players time-waste like nobody's business.
rep ryan, like many politicians on both sides of the aisle, sees people's health and lives as a political football. when the other side had the ball, endless cries of foul. now that his side has possession, suddenly it's rules out the window.
JL
@kick,
i think it's amazing that you were able to track down my first ever post. same principle applies to health insurance. just as drafting all of congress and their spouses and kids into the army would get them to immediately pursue peace, just as not paying them would get them to draft a budget on time, if a large percentage of the medical profession refused to treat any member of Congress, full health coverage would happen next month.
JL
TS
4
Well, the author of the article is a professor in Australia, not a staff reporter for that website, and the sources for the heart of his arguments are the NYT, the UN report from the chemical weapons inspectors, and the MIT weapons expert.
He does use RT for some background on the chemical attacks by ISIS against the Kurds in Iraq (which other, more credible outlets have also reported on), he cites a report from Al Jazeera, and he cites one of his previous articles on the 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta, Syria, and I haven't had a chance to review all his sources for that yet.
The press owned by Rupert Murdoch in Australia is leading the attack against the professor, and you are attacking the credibility of the website... both instead of challenging the facts and arguments in the article. That can be a valid approach that is fully justifiable (see ZeroHedge or Breitbart).
That said, that approach is also often used for nefarious purposes by the establishment to push back against those who dare challenge their preferred narrative... like the now verified reporting using info from whistleblowers about torture and mass surveillance.
Likewise, the dozens of articles in the New York Times by Gordon and Miller, articles in the Washington Post, and numerous others by journalist and "credible" media outlets about the "evidence" leading up to the war in Iraq (which turned out to be spoon fed misinformation and fabrications coming from the Bush administration) raises comparable credibility issues about those outlets.
Because of those stains on their credibility, some dismiss everything they have reported since, some choose to ignore it and still believe their reporting, and some still use them as sources for information but have a healthy skepticism and seek alternate sources for confirmation and/or doubts.
The fact is, the "credible" media outlets have had to issue retractions for factually inaccurate reporting on a fairly regular basis since then too.
In our last conversation, you referred to the pre-Iraq war episode in our history as something like "intelligence failures or falsifications, take your pick"... which is an, er, um, diplomatic way of straddling the fence between the false establishment narrative and the reality of a well documented misinformation campaign to lie to Americans and the world.
If you want to dismiss everything on the website that published the article above due to their failure in accurately estimating the number of bombs dropped in Libya and other failures, I can understand.
Perhaps Global Research was engaging in a conspiracy theory to inflate the number of bombs dropped in Libya to pursue some nefarious anti-war agenda... though reporting of that kind doesn't exactly stop a war in progress or prevent the next one, so it may just be a case of mistaken methodology.
But I'm not one of those who dismisses everything in the NYT because of their damaged credibility, I have seen no reason to doubt the conclusions of the UN chemical weapons inspectors and other experts, and the conclusions reached in the article above meet my definition of common sense while the establishment narrative does not.
I do not have an expectation that I will convince everybody here, or even anybody here, but when I see character assassination being used by right wing media against doubters of the establishment narrative that is similar to the tactics used in 2003, I consider it worthy of discussion.
And, if anything, I don't think it bolsters the establishment narrative. Rather, I think it raises more doubts. If they are resorting to going after the messenger rather than countering the facts and arguments, it comes across as fishy to me.
As always, I greatly appreciate your comments and your willingness to engage.
A
@ts,
much respect for your robust civic engagement. These guys need to know their constituents are watching what they do and will respond at the ballot box.
My own Republican Rep was one of just 20 Republicans who bucked the party line on DonTCare (genius CW). I think he got a lot of mail on this. He's getting a nice letter, congratulating him on his reasoning skills and courage.
do you live in a swing district? if so, are you certain that your rep wasn't permitted his vote by the leadership once the outcome of the vote was already determined? i'm not saying that he necessarily lacks reasoning skills or courage, but i'm always a bit skeptical of those congress critters who happen to do the right thing from time to time.
It will also suggest that he become more courageous... ditch the GOP and become an Independent... if wants my vote next time.
yes, that would convince me too.
JL
TS [5] My own Republican Rep was one of just 20 Republicans who bucked the party line on DonTCare (genius CW).
Unfortunately for him, as one pundit pointed out this afternoon, voters tend to punish the entire offending party in wave elections, not just the worst offenders. So in 2010, Democrats who had voted against Obamacare also lost their seats to Republicans. Can you imagine what party ID will mean next year, when the midterms will be as much a referendum on Trump as a discussion about issues like healthcare?
Alto-9
"...Rupert Murdoch in Australia is leading the attack against the professor"
Hmmm, I actually agree with Rupert on something...OK, Hell must have frozen over...and why is this not on my Weather Channel Ap?!
"If you want to dismiss everything on the website that published the article above due to their failure in accurately estimating the number of bombs dropped in Libya and other failures, I can understand."
I'm not sure you do understand. Libya was simply a case study illustrating how GR pushes bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern here, a dufus operandi, if I may coin a phrase. GR does the same steps with regards to Global Warming, 911, vaccines, The Holocaust, Irish Slavery and probably much, much more. The world wide fake news machine eats this stuff up and poops it back out, and then some other media critter eats it again...it's like watching rabbits feed.
nypoet 22 - 10
"do you live in a swing district? if so, are you certain that your rep wasn't permitted his vote by the leadership once the outcome of the vote was already determined?"
My district is newly drawn, but it looks to be fairly competitive. Upper class suburbia, low income urban, low income rural and a lot of rust belt. Lots of older folks with preconditions on medicaid. Health care and education are big industries in the district. It's certainly possible my congressman was give permission to break ranks. How can you not be skeptical? For the sake of effective diplomacy I mix up the carrots with the sticks.
Turn Down Your Lights (Where Applicable)
MST3K IS BACK
All new old stuff!!!!!!
At the Waffle House today:
"What're y'all worried about? It'll never be law anyway!"
"That doesn't bother you?"
"Hell, no. We just like how pissed off y'all get about it."
I wish I could find the article I had read during the 2008 election that talked about the GOP's plans to roll out their new healthcare plan as soon as McCain won the White House. The article said that Republicans had considered letting GW Bush introduce it, but decided that his popularity had dropped so low and he was on his way out; so they would wait for McCain to become president and let him get the credit for it.
I have no idea who wrote the article or even where I had read it, but I do remember how surprised I was that the Republicans had already done a successful test run of their plan in MA.
Then in 2012 there was statement from one of the "Party of No" Republicans that boasted at how the better a piece of legislation was for this country, the harder they had to fight to block it from passing!
Heck, they were so determined to prevent Obama from getting credit for passing any good legislation that Republicans actually voted against legislation that they, themselves, had introduced; but ONLY after Obama signaled that he supported it and would sign it if it made it to his desk!
Getting a bill that they introduced signed into law is a huge deal for Congress members, so it just demonstrated how twisted the GOP's mindset had become: They were intentionally voting against legislation that they believed was good for their constituents (they introduced it, so this would be a safe assumption I feel) simply because they did not want the President to get credit for signing it!
TS [13] MST3K IS BACK
Hooray! Huzzah!
Some free clips:
http://www.mst3k.com/video
TS
12
"Hmmm, I actually agree with Rupert on something..."
Yup.
And Trump.
And the Bush conspiracy theorists too it seems.
Do you understand how that might impact how someone views your opinions?
"I'm not sure you do understand. Libya was simply a case study illustrating how GR pushes bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern here"
Yes, and if Iraq was a case study for the NYT (or their coverage of Israel, or their 2016 election coverage, or their Libya coverage, or their pro-establishment coverage of the massive frauds on Wall Street, etc.), they too would be correctly classified as using bogus analysis to monger conspiracy theories. There is a pattern there. They have pushed fake news across a wide range of issues.
The claims of credibility by the establishment media outlets have been greatly damaged in their service to that establishment.
And you seem to be opposed to a fair chunk of the agenda the establishment media seeks to advance, and yet you also seem to be maintain the "oh, that's different" double standard whereby those challenging their agenda are dismissed... including, btw, using "fact checking" organizations who choose not to fact check the establishment narrative.
A
altohone [3] -
Thanks for the link. About what I'd expect from the DNC...
Kick [6] -
My wife is already in love with Baby Groot. I read a spoiler-alert review of the sequel, which revealed he chopped off someone's toes, but Baby Groot is still pretty big chez Weigant, these days. Heh.
nypoet22 [8] -
if a large percentage of the medical profession refused to treat any member of Congress, full health coverage would happen next month.
Now there's an idea!
:-)
TheStig [13] -
MST3K is exactly what we need right now, that's for sure!
-CW
Holey moley... 120 comments?
Maybe I'll do Friday later...
Promise... I'll answer comments before this Friday's column is written... how's that?
-CW