Matt Lewis remembers that voting record matters, which tends to be bad news for one Paul Ryan –
Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property—if it doesn’t like you).
While Ryan’s overall voting record is very conservative, the problem with casting these high-profile votes is that they demonstrate he is willing to fundamentally reject conservatism when the heat is on.
Because it is impossible to believe the highly intelligent and well read Rep. Ryan was unfamiliar with conservative economic principles, one must conclude he either 1). Doesn’t really believe in free market economics, or 2). Was willing to cast bad votes for purely political purposes.
From my standpoint, ignorance can be forgiven and overcome; the other explanations, however, seem to be disqualifiers for higher office.
Yes, folks, that is Nick Schweitzer Matt linked to. Speaking of that, Nick was prophetic on what the bailouts of GM and Chrysler would lead to…
What this bailout proposes is to replace that system with one in which the Executive branch, through a “car czar”, and also through various financial carrots and sticks, take control of that reorganization. The danger in doing so is that not only will the bailout money be wasted, but now politics will enter into how the reorganization takes place. If you thought the current system of ear marks, and special favors in bills was bad, just wait and see what little favors GM, Ford and Chrysler are forced to do… whether it will actually help make a successful company again or not. This is once again an unprecedented growth in executive power, which makes our President even more like a King that before.
As for the charges, damn near everybody who doesn’t have a conspiratorial mind got fooled on TARP. However, by the time the auto bailouts came around, the “fool me twice” principle came into play. Ryan’s suggestion was to use previously-programmed-yet-unspent money for plant modernization to do the bailout, which given that the bailout was used as leverage for a takeover, is not exactly defensible. I’ll note that neither the GM truck plant in Janesville (Ryan’s hometown) nor the Chrysler engine plant in Kenosha got saved in the end.
Regarding the pay limit, that is an off-the-record answer.
Umnnhhh…
Yup, TARP was a bill of goods that a LOT of people bought, and I was one of them. (Still not convinced that it was totally off-base.) And yes, some of the TARP recipients should be closed down (Citi, at least.) But that’s another battle.
As to the GM deal: Ryan voted his district. There IS something about “representation” which should ring a bell somewhere in someone’s mind on that thing, “representation.”
As to the bonus clawbacks, well…
If the US taxpayer is supporting an enterprise–keeping it from BK filing–then the enterprise’s execs should NOT expect bonus payments.
You will note that M&I did not pay bonuses this year.
Who in F&^% is GoldmanSachs or BofA to expect otherwise?