Brew City Brawler

Journal Sentinel gushes over the dreamy Paul Ryan

Most newspapers give little attention to bills that are nothing more than grandstanding or empty gestures. That's especially true for bills introduced by House members of an ideologically bankrupt minority party.

But the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel positively gushes about the "excitement" generated in conservative circles for a fiscally irresponsible bill that he claims would reform Social Security, Medicare, the health care system and the tax code. It notes that it's an ambitious plan that even Ryan admits won't go anywhere -- arguably because it's nothing more than a rightwing wish list cranked out to fire up the base in what is sure to be a November massacre for the GOP.

"I call it a road map for America's future," said Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, because the name "Steaming pile of GOP BS" already was taken and mention of roads drive up contributions from his buddies at the Operating Engineers. "If we don't start tackling these problems, they're going to tackle us."

Sadly the article doesn't tackle the actual specifics of the bill -- it contents itself to quote some Republicans who say Paul Ryan is a man of enormous intellectual magnitude and includes an obligatory quote from a liberal type who whines about how the bill benefits the rich. Wah wah wah.

It doesn't note that most people hate health savings accounts -- a point noted in a National Review of doe-eyed Paul -- or that HSAs are in no way a miracle cure for the health insurance crisis the country faces. HSAs are at the core of Ryan's plan to "tackle" the problem of health insurance.

And while it mentions Paul Ryan's plan to fix Social Security (a program that serious people know doesn't face any imminent threat despite some scary, context-free numbers the reporter throws out) -- "Allow workers younger than 55 to invest a third of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts." -- the story doesn't raise the question of how Social Security will meet current obligations if workers are putting money into retirement accounts. Kind of a serious issue. Also, Ryan's plan guarantees people who invest money in retirement accounts would receive the standard payment if their investments don't work out. Can you say "moral hazard?" And where does that money come from?

And that's just for starters.

It's evident from the story that the reporter has no idea what she's writing about -- or doesn't care -- and that she's just running the traps -- wacky contrast lead, quote the congressman, add a patina of policy talk, throw in some quotes favoring/opposing the man behind the plan without addressing the actual plan and "whallah!" you have a news story. And shame on the editors for running this ... piece. The only people served by this story are Paul Ryan and his people who have another clip portraying him as an oasis of ideas.

A more pertinent question the reporter could have put to the ostensibly fiscally conservative Paul Ryan is why he continues to support an occupation that is draining will drain our coffers for decades to come for no good effect.

Which is worse: A paper that sucks or no paper at all?

Paul Ryan: How to tell your newspaper you support the Iraq war!

Want to tell your local newspaper you support the war in Iraq but can't figure out how? Rep. Paul Ryan, who said we'll know by mid-August if the surge is working, provides a template at his reelection web site:

War On Terrorism Talking Points

The consequence of failure in Iraq would be devastating, not only on America’s national security, but would certainly allow for a renewed haven and breeding ground for terrorist in the region.

Paul believes that there are 3 key elements of a successful strategy for success in Iraq, they are:

1. Placing responsibility for success on the Iraqis
2. Giving the Iraqi  people a real stake in their government
3. Securing Baghdad so that security can be maintained by Iraqi troops in the future.

Sweet Jesus, not only would Iraq become a haven for "terrorist" (sic), it would become a "breeding ground" for "terrorist" (sic) in the region? What exactly does a "breeding ground" for "terrorist" (sic) look like? This?

Want some tips on how to make sure your letter gets published (apart from obeying grammar)? Paul can help you out here too:

Tips for Writing a Letter

• Be sure to fill in your entire contact information in the spaces provide.  Some of the editors will call you to verify you actually sent in the letter.
• Choose a topic that matters to you.  The talking points provide you with a good start but the more passion you feel about the issue the better.( to find additional information, you can check out the “Paul on the Issues” tab on this  website.)
• If responding to a specific letter to the editor, recently published, mention the writer by name.  Address any false assumptions with true information and facts.   Be relevant and current.  The more current the issue the better chance you will have of being published.
• Finally, keep your letter under 250 words.  A number of the newspaper will send it back if it is over their limit.  Again, you will have a better chance of being printed if your letter is current, brief and to the point.

So, residents of the 1st District, write your newspapers early and often to ensure that Paul doesn't go wobbly on this whole Iraq thing -- even though the surge isn't meeting it's goals, even though well over half of the country thinks this war is a mistake, even though the real breeding ground for "terrorist" (sic) appears to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc., etc. Otherwise, John Boehner might call him a pussy!

Paul Ryan, Meet Ze Mixta

Someone's got to take down the unsinkable Paul Ryan. Why not the Mixter?

Paul Ryan for President -- the momentum builds

Yesterday at 3:01 PM, someone clicked through to the Brawler after Googling this phrase:

paul ryan for president

As longtime readers of the Brawler may recall, a similar search phrase led someone to the Brawler some time ago.

Now, as then, the searcher resided at a House of Representatives ISP.

So is Paul going to throw his hat into the ring in 08 or will he wait until '12?

In any event, the Brawler would recommend Paul get his staff working on the Ryan for Congress site, The items in the "Paul on the Issues" section are all "under construction." Including, perhaps tellingly, the entry on "War on terrorism."

Paul Ryan, the clock's ticking on Iraq

The Brawler recently said if Rep. Paul Ryan was truly the man of courage and integrity he's made out to be, he'd be calling  for the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Or as he puts it, "throw in the towel." It's quite clear this surge isn't going to work -- particularly in the 3 to 6 month time frame he bandied about in February.

Thing is, time's running out for the man from Janesville to make a principled stand and back up his talk. Because it seems Republican voter support for the war is tanking.

So, will Paul be the courageous guy everyone says he is and "throw in the towel" in advance of his fellow GOPers? Will he wait until everyone else is doing it to save their political skins? Or will he be a deadender?

Here's an excerpt from Paul's issue paper on the "War on Terrorism":

A New Approach to Victory.
Escalating violence over the past year and casualties sustained by both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians underscores the need for a change of tactics in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Congressional leaders suggested a wide range of strategies, ranging from a phased withdrawal and regional redeployment of U.S. forces, to a large surge in the number of troops on the ground to break the insurgency head-on. Additionally, the Iraq Study Group’s final report proposed nearly 80 recommendations, including increased Iraqi responsibility for security operations and U.S. diplomatic engagement of Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran.

On January 10, 2007, President Bush announced his decision for a new way forward in Iraq. Stressing the need to secure Baghdad and its surrounding area, the President announced that he will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 21,500. These troops will be imbedded within Iraqi army and police units and help to hold areas cleared by Iraqi and American forces, ensuring that insurgents do not move back in to the area. As Iraqis take control of Baghdad and the surrounding area, U.S. troops will hopefully be able to begin drawing down.

While I have several concerns surrounding the President’s new strategy, I believe it is the last chance we have to achieve real victory in Iraq. The key elements of a successful strategy include placing the responsibility for success on the Iraqis, giving the Iraqi people a real stake in their government, and securing Baghdad so that law and order can be maintained by Iraqi security forces. However, my concerns about this plan are not whether our troops will successfully complete their mission; I am confident that they will. My concerns center on whether the Iraqi government can deliver on the promises they have made. (Brawler's bold)

If the Iraqi government is able to accomplish the tasks being asked of them, a safe and democratic Iraq will be integral to peace in the region. However, to successfully complete our shared mission, we need to have a concrete plan for victory. The President’s plan, as discussed in his January 10, 2007, Address to the Nation, consists of the following main components:

• Key Security Elements of the New Approach: (1) Iraqis must acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence. They must work with Coalition forces to regain control of Baghdad and provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; (2) Coalition forces must provide the resources necessary to accomplish the mission, increase efforts to support friendly tribes, and accelerate and expand the embed program, while minimizing risk to participants; and (3) Both Iraqis and Coalition forces must continue operations against al-Qaeda, death squad networks, and local militias. Cooperation is necessary in accelerating Iraqi responsibility and increasing Iraqi ownership. Finally, Iraqi security force capacity must be increased to 41 Army Brigades and 112 Army Battalions.

• Key Political Elements of the New Approach: (1) The Government of Iraq must reform its cabinet to end discrimination, act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections), and work to form a moderate coalition as a strong base of support for a unity government; (2) Coalition forces must engage political moderates, support key elements of reconciliation, and diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation of local leaders outside Baghdad; and (3) Both Iraqis and Coalition forces must build on security gains to strengthen the rule of law, foster local and national political accommodations, fight corruption, and make ministry institutions even-handed for all. Engagement with neighboring countries is key to the survival of a free Iraq.

• Key Economic Elements of the New Approach: (1) Iraqis must deliver economic resources and essential services to all communities, utilize hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity and reconciliation, and create long-term job opportunities for Iraqis; and (2) Coalition forces must refocus efforts to build Iraqi government capacity in vital areas, expand Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone, and integrate economic strategy with military effort.

The Need for Success in Iraq.
As we move forward with the President’s new strategy, we must bear in mind the consequences of failure in Iraq and its implications for the American people. It is crucial that we not withdraw before Iraqi security forces, bogged down by sectarian violence in Baghdad, are able to secure that area and prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. If we withdraw now, al-Qaeda’s diminished ranks would quickly rematerialize, encouraging them to take advantage of Iraq and its oil wealth to plot and fund new attacks against the citizens of the United States and free people throughout the world. As a father of three young children, I realize the importance of ensuring Iraq does not become the new base for world-wide terrorist operations. (Brawler's bold)

In addition, if our troops begin an immediate phased withdrawal, the already deteriorated security situation in Baghdad would only devolve further into unrestrained sectarian genocide. Without fear of reprisal from U.S. forces, the bloody struggle between Sunni insurgents and Shi’a death squads would increase dramatically in scope and expand far beyond the city of Baghdad. Our commitment to the vast majority of Iraqi citizens, who want nothing more than to live in peace, precludes a hasty departure of our troops before the Iraqi security forces are given the best opportunity we can offer in this situation to take control of their country and prevent the impending genocide.

Finally, if Iraqi security forces are bogged down by sectarian strife in Baghdad without support from U.S. forces, Iraq’s neighbors would have an even greater opportunity to expand their influence in that country. Iran, whose leadership repeatedly confirmed its desire to develop nuclear technology despite objection from the international community, would only be emboldened by their expanded influence in the region. Such unchecked aggression by a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to a nuclear arms race among nearby Arab nations, directly threatening not only the fragile peace that exists throughout the Middle East, but also the very existence of Israel. All three of these nightmare scenarios could be likely outcomes if the Iraqi government does not succeed in maintaining stability in Iraq. I believe we must give the Iraqis this best, last chance to succeed before conceding these victories to our enemies. (Brawler's bold)

The Brawler admits: Telling your kids that you're conceding defeat to your enemies and you're opening Iraq up to al Qaeda and Iran simultaneously -- all the while trying to appear principled -- is tough. But trying to get elected in 08 as a supporter of the US occupation of Iraq ... that may be tougher.

Paul Ryan, Coward

Lord, the Brawler's tired of media fawning over man of integrity Paul Ryan.

What does he mean? Stuff like this, from Fred Barnes (via Patrick McIlheran):

Fred Barnes writes about uncompassionate conservatives -- the ones worried about having lost the GOP reputation for actually being careful with your money.

"They want it back," Barnes writes. "And they are willing to be pilloried by Democrats as pitiless, cruel, unfeeling, callous, uncaring, coldhearted, and Scrooge-like to get it. That's how important it is to Republicans to be seen again as politicians who can be counted on to restrain or, better yet, slash government spending, even in the case of popular programs.

" 'It would be refreshing to be accused of being heartless and frugal, rather than getting in a bidding war on spending with the Democrats like we have lately,' says Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee."

Let's be plain: Ryan's calls for a "frugal" budget went absolutely nowhere when his profligate party was in power.  Ryan himself prostituted himself by signing off on an expensive Medicare drug bill in exchange for an expansion of his much loved -- by him and Paddy that is -- HSAs. His calls for frugality now are just good PR for a GOP that would never have given him this leadership position if they were still in the majority.

Calling for frugality when he's in the minority does not make Paul Ryan in any way courageous.

What would make Paul Ryan courageous is if he were to break with his party and call for the US to pull out of Iraq. Why? Because that would entail Paul Ryan actually backing up his words with action.

What words? These words about our "surge" in Iraq (from the 2/22/07 Journal Sentinel):

"This whole thing is a big gamble, but it's probably the best gamble to take before throwing in the towel and allowing sectarian genocide to take over," said Ryan, who was visiting Iraq for the first time. "I personally give this three to six months to find out."

So Paul Ryan was saying we should know no later than August 22, on the outside, whether the surge was working.

Unfortunately, King David Petraeus has made it clear that his report to Congress in September will not represent a decisive moment for a war and occupation that's gone on longer than World War II. That is, no one will be able to say the surge has "worked."

Calling for budgets that wouldn't have passed Congress when your party was in the majority is not courageous. Taking a stand that sets you apart from your party -- and is consistent with your past statements -- is.

So one can only assume that if Paul Ryan is courageous, he is now working on his "throw in the towel" speech. Because dollars to donuts he, and other Iraq deadenders, will be delivering such speeches before the 2008 election anyway in order to distance themselves from George Bush's occupation of Iraq.

According to Mark Green, we should be out of Iraq this month

No matter what you think of this Democratic-run Congress, and the Brawler has had his disappointments (though not as strong as some), it is clearly a better place without the likes of Mark Green.

Who if you recall was a full-blown Iraq hawk. One thing you may not recall: In June 2005 he predicted we'd be out of Iraq in two years. As in, right now.

The Brawler, of course, made note of this.

Hauled from the Brawler archives, the classic post: "Mark Green: Johnny Comes Marching Home in 10 months" (8/10/2006):

It's June 2005. Congress is starting to seriously ask Why are we in Vietnam Iraq? Bush is gonna give a big speech to fire up the nation. And Mark Green signs on to the Iraq Victory Caucus.

"It is a caucus of those who wish to publicly express their support for troops and their mission, of what they are doing right now in Iraq," Green said in a telephone interview. Green and co- founder Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., so far have only a handful of members. Green is the only Wisconsin delegation member in the caucus (GNS, 6/28/205).

In an interview with Brian Tumulty he pooh-poohs David Obey's contention that troops are going to be in Iraq for a decade.

Green thinks American troops won't be in Iraq as long as Obey predicts. Green suggests perhaps two years, but also rejects the call by Feingold and Moore for the administration to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Don't the months fly by when you're in a quagmire! Will someone ask him if he still expects to see us out of Iraq next June? (Yes, as always, he had an escape clause in his comment. But isn't it worth asking?)

Sadly, though, Paul Ryan remains in Congress.

The same Paul Ryan who, in February, said we should be able to tell in "three to six months" if the "Surge," our last shot for success in Iraq, was going to work. If the Brawler's math is correct, that's four months ago. At this point, Patrick McIlheran's the only person who thinks it is working. The Brawler looks forward to Paul Ryan, who is touted a maverick who follows his own counsel, saying  in two months that we need to get out of Iraq. That said, the Brawler will not be holding his breath.

It's June 2005. Congress is starting to seriously ask Why are we in Vietnam Iraq? Bush is gonna give a big speech to fire up the nation. And Mark Green signs on to the Iraq Victory Caucus.

"It is a caucus of those who wish to publicly express their support for troops and their mission, of what they are doing right now in Iraq," Green said in a telephone interview. Green and co- founder Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., so far have only a handful of members. Green is the only Wisconsin delegation member in the caucus (GNS, 6/28/205).

In an interview with Brian Tumulty he pooh-poohs David Obey's contention that troops are going to be in Iraq for a decade.

Green thinks American troops won't be in Iraq as long as Obey predicts. Green suggests perhaps two years, but also rejects the call by Feingold and Moore for the administration to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Don't the months fly by when you're in a quagmire! Will someone ask him if he still expects to see us out of Iraq next June? (Yes, as always, he had an escape clause in his comment. But isn't it worth asking?)

"Paul Ryan Should Run for President"

"Paul Ryan should run for president."

The Brawler admits that is a sentence, and a sentiment, that has never entered his head. He wagers the vast majority of people in Wisconsin, including those in Ryan's 1st Congressional District, would say the same.

Someone feels differently.

Those words were typed as a search phrase in google today. And, at 10:05:45 a.m., whoever typed that phrase found his or her way --- thanks to the vagaries of Google's search algorithms -- to yours truly. You gotta love sitemeter.

Who did it? The Brawler doesn't know. But the domain name of the visitor was ... house.gov. Which would suggest to the Brawler that the searcher was someone who works in the House of Representatives. That said, the Brawler has no proof that anyone in Ryan's office took time out of their day to put those words together. He's certain plenty of people in that august chamber feel that way about Paul Ryan.

Right?

Paul Ryan, A Whore Like the Rest: The Ol Lady Owen Edition

Man, does Owen Robinson make the Brawler laugh.

The Brawler still gets a chuckle out of the way Owen was used like a two dollar ho by his beloved Republicans during "copiergate." The image of Owen wasting a day photographing the scene of the "crime" still elicits copious tears. Hey Owen: Any word on your other big scoop about Dem skullduggery from that time?

But his impassioned explanation of why Paul Ryan is not a dirty pol for writing letters on behalf of a constituent -- Dennis Troha -- who's been a big sugar daddy is just as funny.

Bice had a story in Sundays MJS about (among other things) how Ryan wrote some letters urging the passage of legislation that would loosen hauling regulations so trucks could carry four truck cabs behind them. Legislation that benefited Troha.

Owen quickly penned a piece telling readers that Ryan -- unlike Jim Doyle -- is a virtuous man.

First off, let’s seperate Troha’s giving of money to Ryan from the Doyle incident, because there are significant differences.

1) Ryan is not a direct decision maker over the issue. 
2) Ryan’s reason for supporting the legislation is very plausible.  If he truly believed that there was not a safety issue and that it would benefit a large local firm, he was acting correctly in supporting it. 
3) Ryan, unlike Doyle, does not have a history of questionable campaign schenanigans.
4) Ryan immediately and forcefully criticized Troha.
5) Ryan gave the money to charity after the Troha indictment. 

Owen preceded to get smacked around in comments:

You are awfully generous with Ryan; he takes very serious money from a guy he knows to be hip deep in a huge business proposal, the casino, in Ryan’s district and that this proposal requires federal approval to go forward.

While this stuff makes for good campaign mud, I have seen nothing to suggest that anyone broke the law taking Troha’s money.  But, Ryan not so easily distinguished from Doyle as you try and suggest.

Posted by bob laughalott on March 18, 2007 at 1152 hrs

****************

Also, don’t forget that Ryan intervened on Troha’s behalf wothe the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the casino issue.  It wasn’t all about the trucking with Ryan.

Posted by folkbum on March 18, 2007 at 2043 hrs
***************

Owen: Paul Ryan is a pol who listens when the big money talks and has demonstrated a willingness to throw his principles aside for one of this pet schemes (supporting a ridiculously expensive Medicare drug benefit due to an HSA sweetener). The Brawler would suggest that one of the reasons the legislation sounded good to Ryan at the outset was because he received tens of thousands from Troha.

Ryan's a whore like the rest. Just admit it.

Paul Ryan, Tool: The Employee Free Choice Act

Paul Ryan likes to tout Health Savings Accounts as a solution to the nation's health care crisis. There's no proof for that and HSAs suck for consumers.But Ryan believes in HSAs so strongly that the purported spending hawk voted for an outrageously expensive Medicare drug benefit ostensibly because the administration threw in an HSA sweetener.

The Brawler doesn't know why Ryan believes so strongly in HSAs. But he does know the reason a good number of working people in his district -- as well as their families and a large number of retirees --enjoy excellent health care coverage now is because unions fought for those benefits.

And yet Paul Ryan voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for unions to organize workplaces free from intimidation from employers. Rightwingers say card check violates the secret ballot -- without noting that employers see NLRB ballots as a free-for-all for firing union organizers and sympathizers.

From Ezra Klein:

22% of workers surveyed said management "coerced them a great deal" during union elections. 6% said unions did the same. During the NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to report that management coerced them to oppose -- and even in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management coercion, more than complained of union coercion! Workers in NLRB elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management threatened to eliminate their jobs.

Even more interesting, fewer workers in card check campaigns said coworkers pressured them to join the union (17% to 22%). Workers in card check elections were more than twice as likely to report the employer took a neutral stance and let the workers decide. But, rather hilariously, anti-union Labor Secretary Elaine Chao concludes that, "a worker’s right to a secret ballot election is an intrinsic right in our democracy that should not be legislated away at the behest of special interest groups.” A worker's right to organize, conversely, can be swiftly sacrificed atop the altar of business interests.

Surveys show that a majority of American workers would join a union given the opportunity. The Employee Free Choice Act makes it easier for American workers to do that.

The Brawler understands perfectly why the business interests supporting Paul Ryan oppose the Employee Free Choice Act. The Brawler has a harder time understanding how Ryan's vote reflects the philosophy or best interests of his constituents.