Paul Ryan Requested Millions in Stimulus Money

The Boston Globe reports:

In 2009, as Representative Paul Ryan was railing against President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package as a "wasteful spending spree," he wrote at least four letters to Obama's secretary of energy asking that millions of dollars from the program be granted to a pair of Wisconsin conservation groups, according to documents obtained by The Globe.

The advocacy appeared to pay off; both groups were awarded the economic recovery funds -- one receiving a $20 million grant to help thousands of local businesses and homes improve their energy efficiency, agency documents show. [...]

The documents show that Ryan's attempts to take advantage of the stimulus funds even after he voted against them was more expansive than previously reported.

Yep. Just another Republican holding up a tea party protest sign with one hand while accepting a gigantic novelty stimulus check with the other hand.

  • joseph2004


  • joseph2004

    The upshot of what you are suggesting is that a congressman and his district should be punished for requesting funds out of a national spending program, out of “principle” I guess.

    In other words, Ryan – and anyone else who disagrees with the stimulus bill and who votes against such spending – is being a hypocrit for taking funds after the fact.

    If your know-nothing approach to federal moneys were adopted, no one would ever vote “No” on spending bills. No one would vote their conscience.

    And sure as shit, you’d add another layer of corruption on top of an already ethically challenged congress.

    Great plan.

    Once that bill is passed, you cannot deny anyone equal treatment.

    • muselet

      If Paul Ryan were honest, he’d say he opposed the stimulus but held out his hand just like everyone else did. Speaking only for myself, were Ryan honest, I might respect him, if only just a little.

      Instead, he opposed the stimulus, held out his hand (indeed, lobbied hard for stimulus money, arguing that the money would create or save jobs), then kept screeching about how awful the stimulus was and how it didn’t create or save any jobs. Again, speaking only for myself, it’s Ryan’s dishonesty that gripes, not his (run-of-the-mill) hypocrisy.

      Once that bill is passed, you cannot deny anyone equal treatment.

      Which is why the two Wisconsin groups Ryan lobbied for got stimulus money.

      Even though he did nothing others weren’t, the rest of us are still entitled to point out Paul Ryan’s dishonesty and hypocrisy, no matter how much butthurt that causes you.

      Go away, joseph. You’re boring.


      • joseph2004

        Maybe, but I ain’t stupid. And the “gripers” about this subject, from Rachel Maddow on down, betray a perverse understanding of our democratic process.
        Cesca has made all sorts of relentless comments demanding that various Republican governors and others return any money they got from the stimulus, based on their views.
        He’s equated Yes and No votes on spending programs with “Right” and “Wrong.” It’s stupid, and it appeals to ignorant people.

        • muselet

          You may not be stupid, but reading comprehension’s not your strong suit. I repeat:

          Even though he did nothing others weren’t, the rest of us are still entitled to point out Paul Ryan’s dishonesty and hypocrisy, no matter how much butthurt that causes you.

          How on Earth does that constitute “a perverse understanding of our democratic process”? Would it be more in keeping with your understanding of our democratic process for no one to point out when a politician’s actions contradict his (usually loudly-stated) words? Does that mean you will practice what you preach and stay schtum about Democratic politicians (please pretty please)?

          You may not like the fact that we keep calling attention to the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Republican politicians, but we have every right to do so, just as we have every right to point and laugh at you.

          Go away, joseph. You’re still boring.


          EDITED to correct a spelling error (Yiddish isn’t my first language).

          • joseph2004

            Of course you have every right to do so. I’m arguing that your argument is neither here nor there. Gripe all you want, but the outcome must be the same.
            Bummer, obviously, for a politician who votes “no” because you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

          • muselet

            I doubt many of us “gripers” would go after a politician who is honest and consistent, even one who votes against spending bills. We “gripers” might disagree with that pol and if so would make that disagreement clear, but mockery would be inappropriate. The weasels who try to have it both ways, though, will get the full treatment.

            As they should.

            That you don’t understand any of that says far more about you than it does about us.


    • D_C_Wilson

      “In other words, Ryan – and anyone else who disagrees with the stimulus bill and who votes against such spending – is being a hypocrit for taking funds after the fact.”

      Yes. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

      If you expect people to “vote their conscience”, then they should follow their conscience all the way, even when the cameras aren’t looking.

      But the basic flaw in your thesis is that you’re assuming the Ryan’s opposition to the stimulus is based on some kind of principle or conscience. Randroids don’t know the meaning of such words. The real reason Ryan opposed the stimulus is because Obama proposed it. That’s really the only core belief the GOP has left: If Obama is for it, they must be against it.

      • joseph2004

        Whether he’s acting as a “Randroid” or not is beside the point.
        Taking the funds for his district – that act of doing so – is not hypocritical. It’s his job! If a national spending bill passes, his constituents are due a fair share of the proceeds, whatever his vote. Period.

        Whether his rhetoric afterwards seems to conflict with his rhetoric beforehand, the outcome must be the same. His constituents will get their fair share of moneys.

        What people who argue in the opposite direction are saying, I believe, is that a “No” equates to a “wrong” which must therefore be punished.

        How can that be viewed as anything but corrupting?

        • D_C_Wilson


          Obviously, arguments about moral consistency go over your troll head.

          But let me try to explain it again:

          Ryan didn’t just vote “No”, he actively campaigned against the stimulus. As did governors like Bobby Jindal before he accepted the stimulus:

          “This trillion dollar spending bill misses the mark on all counts,” said Ryan in a statement from his office. “This is not a crisis we can spend and borrow our way out of – that is how we got here in the first place.”

          That’s not just a “No” vote. That is him most definitively saying that the stimulus is wrong. So yes, he is a raging hypocrite.

          Try again.

          • joseph2004

            OK D_C_Wilson,
            If, say, you’re a constituent of Ryan’s who did not vote for him, would you argue that he not apply for funds, out of principle – out of “moral consistency”?

            Doubt it.

            The whole hypocrisy argument is meaningless unless you’re arguing for a policy that would deny funds to “No” voters. Absent that, it’s nothing but hot air.

          • D_C_Wilson

            If I were a constituent of Ryan’s, I’d have moved out of his district years ago.

            But once again, you’re missing the point. It isn’t about creating a policy to “punish” his constituents. It’s expecting a public official to maintain a consistent set of principles. But again, I can see where words like “principles” and “convictions” confuse your troll brain.

            If his constituents aren’t happy about his convictions, they are free to vote him out of office. There’s a word for that. I think it starts with a “D”. But if he actually stood by his convictions, I could at least respect him for it, even if I disagreed with them.

            We don’t need to adopt a policy about who should get funds after a vote was held. We have a system in place for dispersing those funds. It’s that “D” word again. You keep trying to move the goalposts. It’s not about policy. It’s about standing firm on your convictions. But why should be expect that from Ryan. This is a guy who spent years praising the philosophy of Ayn Rand. He even made all his interns read Atlas Shrugged. But now he’s run away from that, too.

            And yes, we’re going to keep talking about it, no matter how much it hurts your pwecious feewings.

    • nicole

      Complete horseshit, no surprise coming from you.

      If Ryan didn’t believe that the stimulus was the right way to go, he should not have accepted stimulus funds, and even after that, keep running his whiny little mouth about the very funds that he used to bring home the PORK.

      In fact, PORK is the only thing Ryan is good at. He’s sure pathetic as a person who was hired to pass bills, and can’t manage to get more than TWO bills passed in 10+ years.

      Geez, alopecia is right, joseph. You’re a BORE. Repetition is boring. Go away.

      • joseph2004

        I might hang around to bore you some more, but, lucky for you, my show is on.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Can’t miss your Teletubbies, eh?

    • bphoon

      While I realize that trying to argue principle with you is an exercise in futility, I’ll try to put this another way that maybe–just maybe–you’ll understand:

      I don’t think anyone here has a problem with a politician opposing a spending bill yet accepting–even lobbying for–money from that bill on behalf of her constituents. Hell, I’m glad Ryan lobbied for stimulus money, and for conservation groups! It saved jobs and (gasp!) proves the stimulus worked! Yea!!

      It’s true that even though a representative, believing the majority of her constituents are against the spending in question, opposes the bill, those constituents deserve their share of the monies available. No problem.

      All anyone here is asking is that the politician be honest about it. Oppose a spending bill and accept the monies available but don’t then turn around and pose yourself as some Ayn-Randian-purist-deficit-hawk and bad mouth the very law that provided needed assistance to your constituents in order to score some cheap political points. I don’t understand how you can fail to see the hypocrisy in that.

      I’m trying to lay this out in the simplest of terms but if you go true to form, I’m sure you’ll dream up some bullshit argument to try to refute it. Probably call me stupid in the process, too…

      Oh, well…just thought I’d try…