It would be understandable if Paul Ryan didn’t want to stick his neck out just now. As the GOP vice-presidential nominee last year, Ryan spent four months on a whistle-stop tour of the country, shaking hands, answering questions, and speaking at campaign rallies, sometimes in multiple states on the same day. If the 43-year-old Wisconsin Republican lay low for the next year—ate regular meals, sat in a tree stand with an arrow nocked in his bow, savored a (however slight) downtick in denouncements—one could hardly blame him. After the election, Ryan did spend some time unwinding. During Thanksgiving week, for instance, he took a trip down to Oklahoma, his wife’s native state, with his 10-year-old daughter. “I took her deer hunting, and she got her first buck, a nice 10-pointer. That was really exciting,” Ryan says, beaming. “My first deer was what we call a button buck.” It was a clean kill with a .243 Remington 700—a junior size, made for kids—that she’d received from her parents the previous Christmas. Today, though, mere months after stepping off the Romney-Ryan 2012 bus for the last time, if the congressman feels any lingering exhaustion from the campaign trail, he doesn’t let it show. In fact, he’s thrust himself right back into the center of the political melee, and—on a host of issues, from immigration to poverty—is stepping up to do what statesman are supposed to: lead. THE CONGRESSMAN IS BUBBLING with energy when we meet in his Longworth office, a home away from home for Ryan, who sleeps on a cot there when the House is in session. The décor is eclectic: an autographed napkin on which economist Arthur Laffer has drawn his eponymous curve; taxidermied ducks in various poses, sitting on a log or winging their way toward the ceiling; honorary degrees from Hamburger University, a 130,000 square foot McDonald’s training facility in Illinois across the border from his district (Ryan worked the grill at a franchise during high school). Many Americans had probably heard of Ryan—or the “Ryan budget”—before his nomination last year, but the campaign doubtless further imprinted on the national consciousness his name, blue-eyed visage, and biography. He was born and raised in Janesville, Wisconsin, the town he still calls home; studied economics and political science; interned and then worked on Capitol Hill before winning a seat in Congress in 1998 at the age of 28. Ryan rose to prominence by crafting a series of audacious conservative budget proposals beginning in 2008, and then championing them tirelessly when even fellow Republicans were skeptical. He was elevated to ranking member of the House Budget Committee in 2007, and then chairman after the GOP took control of the chamber in 2010. When I ask about the contrast between the Republicans’ budget, passed by the House, and the Democrats’, passed by the Senate, Ryan uncrosses his legs, straightens up in his chair, and begins to animate the conversation with his hands. He throws out detailed figures unaided, the way a serious sports fan can rattle off statistics about passing yards and free-throw percentages. For instance: “The president’s budget achieves a small amount of deficit reduction over the 10-year period simply because his tax increase slightly eclipses his spending increase by about $119 billion,” Ryan says. “That deficit reduction, when you take out all the smoke and the mirrors in the president’s budget, begins to occur in the year 2020, four years after he’s left office.” The political challenge this year is a bit different in that, for the first time since 2009, Senate Democrats have passed a budget. Republicans ushered their own plan through the House, and so legislators are tasked with closing the gap—nay, chasm—between the two proposals. The Democratic budget includes about $1 trillion in new taxes and grows spending over the next decade. The Republican plan slows that growth, includes about $4.6 trillion in spending cuts, and is intended to put the budget on track to balance by 2023. Looming over the entire process is the debt ceiling, the statutory limit on the federal government’s ability to borrow, which is slated to run out sometime in late July unless Congress intervenes. Ryan says he thinks the two issues will probably converge, and that if the president wants a large, long-term increase in the debt ceiling, he’d better come to the table prepared to make a deal on the budget. All of which raises the question: How should Republicans most profitably oppose the president? How hard a bargain, with control of only one half of one third of the federal machinery, can the GOP possibly drive? Ryan has clearly pondered the question, and he answers in a way that belies his caricature. Liberal writers and activists revel in portraying Ryan as an ideologue. In October, a New Yorker writer described him as a “Randian social engineer.” A profile in the New Republic the same month suggested that
Both parties constantly make accusations that their rival is engaged in hypocritical, unethical, or illegal behavior. Given the drastic lack of ideological diversity in the American elite media, the general public usually only hears about such accusations against Republicans. Beyond the fact that biased reporting shapes public opinion to favor the left, it may also have an effect on law enforcement. The persistent lies that have been told about right-leaning political groups by leading Democrats, including President Obama himself, may have led to the IRS abuses of power that we’ve heard so much about in recent weeks. Even assuming that the Internal Revenue Service decided to target conservative groups without explicit orders, the fact is that Obama and other Democrats have been smearing conservatives for so long with vague but outrageous charges of criminality, it’s no wonder that some bureaucratic goons decided to harass “tea party” and “patriot” groups. The context of the audits is quite clear in retrospect, as Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel demonstrated in an excellent piece
Ex-IRS Official: Tea Party Was “Shorthand” For All Political Groups…
So much BS. Via Washington Examiner: Internal Revenue Service agents used “Tea Party” as “shorthand” for any group filing for tax-exempt status that the agents thought was dedicating too much time to campaign activities and not just to single out conservative groups, a former top IRS deputy told congressional investigators. Holly Paz, recently fired from
Read more from the original source:
Ex-IRS Official: Tea Party Was “Shorthand” For All Political Groups…
Lots of unfortunate truths in this CNN article: Remember the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups? It was the scandal du jour in Washington last month, now relegated to back-burner status after recent revelations of a vast government electronic surveillance apparatus created in the name of national security following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. … If the investigations [into the IRS] fail to find a political effort to suppress activities by conservatives, the scandal will likely die a slow bureaucratic death of piecemeal reports in coming months. The NSA scandal has shoved the IRS scandal off the front pages, and it shouldn’t be that way. Our media is sprawling and pluralistic: perfectly capable of devoting substantial resources to both. But despite its size, the press tends to act less like a network of journalists dividing up concurrent stories, and more like a mindless herd of gazelles charging to the freshest breaking news item. Add in the fact that most reporters, being progressive, are more interested in covering civil liberties abuses than government attacks on conservatives, and you have good reason to believe that the press will let the IRS story fade away. The IRS, the Treasury Department, and Eric Holder’s Justice Department—that unextinguishable lantern of good government—are all investigating the agency’s misconduct. That, of course, shouldn’t comfort anyone. Congressional Republicans are also on the case, including the pugnacious Rep. Darrell Issa. Issa has been masterful at keeping needed investigations alive in the ADD news cycle, most notably last year when he forced the media to pay attention to Fast and Furious for a few days. But even Issa can only do so much; the gunrunning scandal still hasn’t received the coverage it deserved. But the IRS scandal is different—so different, in fact, that the term “IRS scandal” is almost a misnomer. This isn’t about just the IRS. The Department of Labor, the ATF, the FBI, and OSHA have all been credibly accused of auditing conservative groups for political reasons. The big picture is one of a government-wide attempt to bully an ideological movement it didn’t like. The NSA story is impactful too, but it’s more a matter of confirming what we already knew: Is there anyone out there who didn’t think the government was scanning call records or internet data? It’s still wrong and the NSA should still be investigated. But it shouldn’t detract from the breathtaking abuses of power committed against Tea Party groups. That’s not to say that coverage of the IRS scandal has vanished completely. This story, which proves Washington IRS supervisors knew what was happening in Cincinatti, got a smattering of attention. That’s nice, but it deserves to be on the front page of every newspaper in the country—above the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision, and even above the 600th reprinting of that same picture of Edward Snowden.
Continue reading here:
Keep the IRS Scandal Alive
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
So here’s the formula. An independent agency of the U.S. government. United States Senators. A powerful campaign contributor to said United States Senators. A powerful campaign contributor who wants something from said independent agency. Add it all together and what you get is — The Keating Five. And the IRS Ten. Let’s start, by way of illustrating how the game worked, with The Keating Five. There were five of them. Five United States Senators. Two already military heroes before they spent a day in the United States Senate. The other three were garden variety U.S. Senators, lifelong politicians. Together, they became known as “The Keating Five.” In the 1980s and 1990s there was a major collapse of the U.S. Savings and Loan industry. Almost 750