Paul Ryan's spending votes get a second look
Matt Sullivan/Getty Images
Updated at 12:48 p.m. ET
(CBS News) As a congressman in a comfortably safe Wisconsin district, Rep. Paul Ryan voted for some expensive initiatives while building a reputation as a serious conservative. But now that he is Mitt Romney's running mate, some of his ideological inconsistencies are now coming under the microscope.
Ryan came under fire this week after reports surfaced that Ryan requested stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses even as he lambasted President Obama's $787 billion initiative as a waste of money. The congressman initially denied requesting the funds, but later Thursday evening said his office did make make the requests on behalf of the businesses. His office mistakenly treated the issue like any other "constituent service" request, he said, and "should have been handled differently."
The Obama campaign on Thursday seized on the issue, sending out an official press release with the reports of Ryan's initial denials.
The Obama campaign also this week cast Ryan as a flip-flopper after the Republican congressman said, "Mitt Romney and I are going to crack down on China cheating. And we're going to make sure that trade works for Americans." Danny Kanner, a spokesman for the president's re-election team, noted that Ryan voted against a bill in September 2010 authorizing the Commerce Department to impose duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies such as China. "Just a few days after being picked as Romney's vice presidential candidate because of his 'ideas,' it's unfortunate and troubling that he so quickly abandons them," Kanner said.
The intense focus on Ryan's record is new for the congressman -- Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), a firm that analyzes political advertising, noted that more ads are released in one quiet week of the presidential campaign than have aired in the span of several of Ryan's last congressional races.
While Ryan saw little negative advertising in his comfortable district, the League of Conservation Voters did in 2011 attack him for supporting "big oil" and accused him of supporting the industry to line his own pockets. The ad opens with Ryan agreeing with a constituent that oil subsidies need to stop before voting to support them.
Now that the Obama campaign has set its sights on Ryan's policies, there are plenty of other votes they can target: Ryan in his 14 years in Congress has voted for pricey intiatives, as Politico notes, like the Bush-era tax cuts, the $700 billion bank bailout, the expansion of Medicare and the highway bill that included the notorious "Bridge to Nowhere."
In 2003, Ryan broke with other conservatives to back the Medicare Modernization Act, which gave seniors prescription drug benefits at a cost initially estimated at $400 billion over 10 years. Uwe Reinhardt, a health care economist at Princeton University, noted to CBS News this week that Ryan voted for a program "which gave the elderly a huge new entitlement and put it all on the tab from here to kingdom come." Reinhardt argues that Ryan's current plan for overhauling Medicare won't control health care costs.
In 2008, Ryan voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to bail out the banks -- a move he later told the Daily Caller "wasn't a fun vote."
"In order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary," he said.
Ryan also explained to the Daily Caller why he voted for loans to help the auto industry, even as Romney and other Republicans called it a bad move. The congressman said the Obama administration told Congress they had the choice of giving the auto industry loans or expanding TARP for the industry.
In response to the new scrutiny over Ryan's voting record, the Romney campaign points back to President Obama's own record and Ryan's efforts to find solutions.
"Under President Obama, America has racked up record debt and experienced an unprecedented downgrade of our credit, while seniors have seen Medicare cut by more than $700 billion," Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck said. "We can't afford any more of the President's broken promises. That's why Congressman Ryan has worked in a bipartisan manner to find solutions to our debt crisis."
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 153 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities 77 Comments
- Next up for Obama: Major effort on climate change
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 82 Comments
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 598 Comments
- Michelle Obama and daughters tour Berlin Play Video
- IRS readying to pay $70M in employee bonuses, senator says
- IRS scandal: Is partisanship overshadowing facts?
Mitt Romney has a nine-figure net worth, and made his fortune by building up some companies and destroying others, profiting mightily either way. (Of course, he was also the son of the President of American Motors, and never attended a school where he had to deal with ordinary Americans, aka the rabble.) So if he thinks one or two years of tax returns is all "you people" have any right to examine, that's all he's going to release. If you think that's a trace high-handed, perhaps you ought to vote against him.
And Paul Ryan? Those Social Security benefits he received after his father died when he was just 16 make him seem like a "working-class hero," but his family owns one of the top construction firms in southern Wisconsin, with multimillion dollar contracts, not just to build and repair Wisconsin roads, but also to work on O'Hare Airport! And he married into the Oklahoma Boren family, Blue Dog Democrats with substantial holdings in oil, gas, lumber, and gravel(!). So he's simply not answerable for the apparent contradiction between all the unfunded taxcuts, wars, and new entitlements he supported during the Bush administration and the deficit-hawkishness of his plans for Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, and just about everything else the federal government does (except defense). You see a contradiction? Ryan sees programs that are good for himself and Romney and the people funding their campaign!
From the Congressional Budget Office, Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001", dated June 7, 2012, states the following: "In
January 2001, CBO's baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6
trillion for the 2002-2011 periods. The actual results have differed from those projections because of subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO's forecast, and other factors. As a result, the federal
government ran deficits from 2002 through 2011. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period amounted to $6.1 trillion—a swing of $11.7 trillion from the January 2001 projections."
The data provided indicates the current national debt is a combination of tax cuts, bailouts, discretionary spending and interest between 2001 and 2011, and less than expected growth.
In January 2001, President George H. Bush inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus.
Revenues during the 10 year period were decreased by $6.1 trillion through tax cuts of $2.8 trillion (Bush and Obama) and $3.1 trillion as a result of the economic downturn.
Outlays during the 10 year period were increased by $5.6 which included discretionary spending ($2.9 trillion), bailouts, tax break costs, Medicare prescriptions ($1.4 trillion) and interest ($1.3 trillion).
Taking the $6.1 trillion revenue decrease and $5.6 trillion outlay increase, the swing is $11.7 trillion.
This begs the following questions:
Why did the United States maintain tax breaks during the Iraq conflict, an unplanned outlay? Why would the United States maintain tax breaks during an economic downturn? Also, where is the money from the Bush era tax breaks and the Bush / Obama bailouts?
No honest discussion can be had on the lack of progress of the economy and President Obama without also talking about the deliberate, unyielding, sabotaging obstruction by republicans. Absent that the discussion is dishonest and bogus.
_______________
Very true.
OBAMA has NOT increased the size of the government FACT .....
OBAMA has SLOWED the GROWTH of Governemtn Spending ....
Slowest spending in decades
Annualized growth of federal spending
Reagan 82-85 - 8.7%
Reagan 86-89 - 4.9%
Bush I 90-93 - 5.4%
Clinton 94-97 - 3.2%
Clinton 98-01 - 3.9%
Bush II 02-05 - 7.3%
Bush II 06-09 - 8.1%*
Obama 10-13 - 1.4%
As usual, the joke is on the American people.
If we default our dollars will be worth less.
If our dollars are worth less it will be more difficult, if not impossible. to payoff our debt.
A World Bank policy research paper issued in March looked at 90 countries that have gone through a sovereign default. The paper found that countries with weak institutions, polarized government, and powerful interest groups are more likely to default. We know, ultimately, that debt causes default. What causes debt, however, is not too much spending or too little revenue. It's an inability to make decisions.
A budget is all the things you've agreed to do right now. Ryan lays out a list of ways to change the way Washington spends, but they all amount to plans to plan in the future. Congress will be required to carry out across-the-board spending cuts if it fails to find spending cuts. Caps on the total size of government will be enforced by sequester. This approach has already failed.
There is no sequester Congress can't slip out of, no spending cut it can't forestall. You can't force a future Congress to do anything, because all it takes to unwind your beautiful resolution is another act of Congress.
The repeal of the Glass Steagall act was set up by Republican Phil Gramm in the Senate and Republican Congressman Jim Leach in the House, with Republican Congressman Thomas Bliley. The Repeal act was called the Gramm Leach Bliley act. Clinton signed it even though Democrat Congressman John Dingell warned it would make banks "Too Big To Fail."...
Jaylah,
I dispute your figures, but,
even if you were right, defense is the number one reason that there is a central government of these United States!
____________________
Disputing my figures actually requires defining what is meant by "welfare" as well as "defense."
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 13% of our federal tax dollars go for "safety net programs" and 20% to for "defense."
However that doesn't tell the full story. For example, that "defense" figure doesn't include "foreign aid" for things like arming Israel, sending billions of dollars to Pakistan, etc.
As to your "reason that there is a central government of these United States" I refer you to the preamble to the United States Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So I'm not really sure where you're coming up with this "number one reason" thing. If it was written in order of importance, then the "national defense" is number 4 on the list.
Followed immediately by promoting the general "welfare" of our citizens.
But to get back to my original point, I have no problem with defending our country. Maybe that's why I spent several years in the US Army. What I DO have a problem with is our offense. We have no business starting wars in the middle east. We have no business sending money or arms to Israel when they use them for terrorist tactics against the Palestinians. (We also have no business sending aid to Palestine when it's going to be used to fund terrorist tactics against Israel.)
We would not even BE involved in any wars in the Middle East had we not butted in with the whole thing with Israel insisting on keeping lands it took over in the Six Day War. That was the start of the Muslims getting pissed at us and, frankly, I don't blame them.
But I digress...
The point I am trying to make is that we should be taking care of our OWN first. We should not be whining about the fact that there are ever increasing numbers of Americans relying on food stamps to eat, or how many Americans earn so little as to not be able to pay any federal income tax, when we're spending over $150 billion each year to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I'd rather make sure no American child goes to bed hungry before worrying about people in other countries. And Washington, particularly the GOP, has completely forgotten what the term "fiscal conservative" even means!!
Do I think President Obama has done a good job since he was elected? I most certainly do not. (And, to be honest, a large part of why I don't is because of his willingness to cave almost immediately to TeaBaggers demands.)
Do I think either Romney or Ryan has the "solution" to get us out of the mess we find ourselves in? My dog (who died in March of last year) would do better.
Do they stop buying food for their children?
Or do they go through their budget, item by item, and eliminate all that can be eliminated WITHOUT CAUSING HARM TO THE FAMILY.
And then, if they still don't have enough to meet their monthly payments, the parents (one or both) goes out and finds a second job.
What they DON'T do is keep making payments on the neighbor's Cadillac Escalade. They STOP buying their kids the latest version of the iPhone the day it comes out. They may move into a smaller house, but they sure as hell don't sign a contract to put an addition on their existing house.
Seems clear that Pretty Boy is just another in a long-line of conservative hypocrites. Raging against spending, while at the same time getting as much of it for themselves as possible (and of course sucking down a big government paycheck and benefits package).
Romney The Panderer and Ryan The Hypocrite
How can anyone be so foolish as to vote for this disaster?
**By the way - Ryan's supposed bold Budget "Plan" on entitlements that was touted as his idea and presented to Congress last year.... It was completely cooked up by right-wing wacko's at the Heritage Foundation. So much for the image him be his own tough man and an economics "expert'.