But if Ryan genuinely stumbled heedless into a racial tinderbox then it suggests he, and most likely many other conservatives, has fully internalized a framing of social politics that was deliberately crafted to appeal to white racists without regressing to the uncouth language of explicit racism, and written its origins out of the history. If that’s the case it augurs poorly for those in the movement who are trying to broaden the Republican Party’s appeal, because it’s easier to convince people to abandon a poor tactic than to unlearn rotten ideology.
This is the part about this story I find interesting. It has become such an article of faith among certain folks that this “it’s the poors fault for being inherently inferior” argument holds some sort of merit that they don’t realize where it came from in history.
WALLACE: No no, I’m just talking about cuts. We’ll get to the deductions, but the cut in tax rates.
RYAN: The cut in tax rates is lowering all Americans’ tax rates by 20 percent.
WALLACE: Right, how much does that cost?
RYAN: It’s revenue neutral. […]
WALLACE: But I have to point out, you haven’t given me the math.
RYAN: No, but you…well, I don’t have the time. It would take me too long to go through all of the math. But let me say it this way: you can lower tax rates by 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class. For things like charitable deductions, for home purchases, for health care. So what we’re saying is, people are going to get lower tax rates.
CLEVELAND — Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan declined on Tuesday to back away from statements in his party convention speech that nonpartisan fact checkers have branded as false or misleading.
In a round of television interviews, the Wisconsin congressman was challenged by network anchors to defend statements on Medicare, the federal deficit and the 2008 closing of a GM plant in his hometown, Janesville.
At least folks are making that first step. The idea is to make sure and mention that every fact checking group has rated his statements lies, do so both to his face, and again after the interview is done. That’s the media’s job.
McDonnell: We’re affirming that we’re a pro-life party.The details certainly are left to Congress and, ultimately, to the states and the people on how they ratify such an amendment. More importantly, what they do at the state level.
Stephanapoulous: So is the party for a rape exception or not?
McDonnell: The party didn’t make any judgment on that. It’s a general proposition to say we support human life. The rest of the details are up to the states and the people respectively, George. That’s simply not covered.
On top of that we also get this wonderful euphemism for rape from none other than Paul Ryan.
Here’s the problem…Republicans want to somehow claim that giving into religious extremists on birth control, outlawing all abortion (even in the case of “illegitimate methods of conception”), and bashing Obama’s achievements in gender equality is somehow *in support* of women, and it’s really the Democrats who are waging a “war on women”.
(As a quick aside, I find it hilarious that the champions of the annual TV-event, the “War on Christmas”, take such umbrage about the usage of the term “War on Women” to describe the methodical nature of Republican’s attempts to limit the rights and freedoms of women. It’d be more funny if it wasn’t so blatantly hypocritical…but I guess that’s why it *is* funny…so I’m left in something of a pickle in my not-so-quick aside.)
So, yea…there you have it. Sure, publicly Republicans denounce Todd Akin as an outlier…but the reality of the party’s platform is that it is 100% aligned with the heart of Akin’s comments; “Rape ain’t no excuse, no abortions for anyone…life for all.”
Yes, folks, for a little while in Florida this week, as bizarro universe melds with ours as religious leaders keeping secular employees from getting birth control is called “religious freedom” (as is banning the building of non-Christian places of worship), and “small government” is all about controlling what the majority of the population can and can’t do with their reproductive organs.
States have cut more than $1.6 billion in general funds from their state mental health agency budgets for mental health services since FY2009, a period during which demand for such services increased significantly. These cuts translate into loss of vital services such as housing, Assertive Community Treatment, access to psychiatric medications and crisis services.
Modest increases in state general fund mental health spending fail to compensate for the loss in federal Medicaid revenues that hit states due to reductions in federal Medicaid rates implemented at the end of June 2011. Moreover, to make up for these lost federal Medicaid revenues, states such as Arizona and Ohio have shifted state general fund mental health dollars to Medicaid recipients, leaving many non-Medicaid recipients with serious mental illness without services.
“What we’re trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed,” Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC’s “Up with Chris Hayes” and provided to HuffPost. “What we’re trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they’ve passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work.”
After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.
Ryan had denied doing so as recently as Wednesday, when he spoke to ABC’s Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, in Ohio.
“I never asked for stimulus,” Mitt Romney’s new running mate said. “I don’t recall… so I really can’t comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn’t work, it didn’t work.”
“I’m not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money,” the congressman answered.
In 2009, Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis asking for stimulus money to cover costs on two energy conservation projects in his home state of Wisconsin. In the letter, Ryan said the funds would help create jobs and reduce “energy consumption” in the state. At least one of the companies received the requested cash.
Thursday, Ryan responded to the questions himself.
“After having these letters called to my attention I checked into them, and they were treated as constituent service requests in the same way matters involving Social Security or Veterans Affairs are handled,” Ryan said in a statement. “This is why I didn’t recall the letters earlier. But they should have been handled differently, and I take responsibility for that.
“Regardless, it’s clear that the Obama stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy, and now the President is asking to do it all over again.”
The one major aspect of the story in dispute was the topic of conversation at Ryan’s dinner table.
Feinberg said all three men were “droning on loudly during the evening that liberals think that if you’re a millionaire, you have done something wrong.”
The really sick part? Paul Ryan then turned around and called the economists he ate with, the millionaires recall, stupid….
TPM: …she was saying, is it appropriate for you guys to be ordering that kind of wine $350 dollars-a-bottle?
Ryan: “A.) I didn’t order it. B.) I had no idea what it would cost, and C.) …I bought one of these bottles even though I drank a glass, and I always pull my own weight for my meals.”
TPM: That was very smart. … But do you think it’s appropriate now that you know how much the wine cost to be drinking [such expensive wine] when you’re advocating cuts for seniors?
Ryan: “I think it’s stupid to pick up that much for a bottle of wine under any circumstance.”
TPM: But you had to pay for it…
Ryan: “Yeah, I was like this is ridiculous. Who buys wine that expensive?*** It surprised me, and I think it’s stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine.
TPM: So you wouldn’t do it again?
Ryan: “Well, of course not, because I think it’s too much money to pay for wine. Yeah, I don’t really know what exactly it cost. It was expensive. But um, 250 maybe it was 250, I don’t really remember.”
It was $350, you liar. How do you not remember paying $350 for a bottle of win of which you had one glass?
My guess it takes the same level of internal intellectual honesty where you can claim that you are killing Medicare to save it. Which is to say, it’s right at Paul Ryan’s level.
*** Hint: It ain’t people on Medicare or Medicaid. They don’t have that much money to waste as stupidly as you do.
NOTE: This is also a shining example of why we should never, ever, even think about raising taxes on the wealthy. Think how much that would impact the tips on orders like this. Just think about it!