Congress Election 2016

Speaker Ryan Says the House Will Pursue Policies Their Likely Nominee Opposes

paul-ryan
JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

We've entered the acceptance phase of Trump grieving and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) now says congressional Republicans will "make it work" with Trump.

More interestingly, Ryan addressed Trump's opposition to cutting social programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

In short, Ryan says his House will keep trying to cut these programs regardless of who becomes president even if it's a Republican who opposes it.

“We’ll make it work if it happens,” Ryan said in an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood. “I’m going to defend our ideas as the Republican Party, but we’re going to have to work with whoever our nominee is.” [...]

“I think for younger people like myself, they're not going to be there for my generation when we retire,” Ryan said. “You have to change these benefits to prevent them from going bankrupt.”

Maybe the Republican party will not steal the nomination from Trump at their convention. That doesn't necessarily mean they will respect the will of the voters who are not voting for Ryan's spending cuts.

Ryan previously said he wanted to work with the GOP candidates on a positive legislative agenda to present to the American people, but the ridiculous budget currently working its way through the House is anything but positive. It's clear now that Ryan never had any intention of compromising and meeting the political needs of their presidential nominee.

Ryan may say he has no interest in being anointed the nominee at the GOP convention, but he may as well be the nominee. By refusing to alter the party's agenda in Congress regardless of who wins, Ryan is appointing himself as leader of the party.

If there are any recent examples of a congressional party pursuing an agenda their own presidential nominee opposes, I can't recall them.

I'm starting to think the reverence and hype of the Fake Genius that is Paul Ryan has done as much or more damage to the Republican party than Trump will. Would there even be a Trump without the party's fetish for radically reshaping government in favor of the rich? They've been running on Paul Ryan's Path to Poverty budget for six goddamn years with nothing to show for it but electoral ruin.

The current GOP Congress is the ultimate manifestation of a party that has supported an economic regime for over 30 years that impoverishes white conservatives and tells them minorities are to blame for it. Trump is the avatar of these conservatives who've been sold a box of goods by their own party.

If Republican voters nominate someone who is opposed to spending cuts and Republicans in Congress ignore them, there should be absolutely no debate that Congressional Republicans only serve their rich masters.

  • Christopher Foxx


    I’m going to defend our ideas as the Republican Party,

    “Just as soon as we actually have one.”

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Republican politics in the Obama era has always been grounded in self-congratulation and resentment. Who, apart from maybe Sarah Palin, personifies those ‘qualities’ better than Trump?

  • Jesus Zamora

    Basically, what we’re looking at, either way you slice it, is another eight years without the Republicans being able to fuck the federal budget.

    Either Trump pushes wins and, despite Ryan’s brave words here, moves the party in a direction more in line with European populist groups (racism+social programs), Clinton wins and reduces the GOP to another eight years of obstructionism, or Clinton wins and the almost certain blame game the Conservative Entertainment Complex will play with the Republican Establishment ensures the party continues its irreparable fissure.

  • muselet

    Paul Ryan is as bad at democracy as he is at budgeting.

    Raise your hand if you’re surprised.

    –alopecia

  • Aynwrong

    “They’ve been running on Paul Ryan’s Path to Poverty budget for six goddamn years with nothing to show for it but electoral ruin.”

    I take your point but the problem is that also in that same time the GOP has won a greater number of seats in the House, Senate and Governor’s mansions. At least that would be the argument Republicans would make. Granted low voter turnout has a lot, maybe everything to do with this. Hopefully a Drumpf campaign affects the race so badly for the GOP that the Dems will be able to take back the Senate at least.

    “If Republican voters nominate someone who is opposed to spending cuts and Republicans in Congress ignore them, there should be absolutely no debate that Congressional Republicans only serve their rich masters.”

    Perfectly stated.

    • JMAshby

      They’ve also made things much worse after all those victories. Look at Louisiana and Kansas. And they’ve accomplished almost nothing in Congress. How long can they keep that up before their own voters look for alternatives? If they nominate Trump, I think we have the answer.

      My main point was that they keep running on radical wholesale change of the entire government as seen in Paul Ryan’s budgets, but GOP voters don’t seem to actually want that. Ryan now says he’s sticking with it even if voters loudly reject it by nominating Trump.

      • Aynwrong

        Oh I don’t disagree at all. Their policies have been disastrous. It was just your use of the phrase “electoral ruin” I was pointing out. Conservatives would troll you with the current make up of the House & Senate.

        Voters in states like Kansas & Louisiana are confounding. They may not want conservative policies but they seem utterly unwilling to vote for the party that would give them something different. Trump seems to have found the missing ingredient. RACE BAITING!!!

        The sad thing is that the only reason the governor of Louisiana is currently a Democrat is because of David Vitter’s ridiculous sex scandal.

        • ninjaf

          They may not want conservative policies but they seem utterly unwilling to vote for the party that would give them something different.

          THIS! I have seen so many Conservative friends, family, and acquaintances bemoaning not having anyone to vote for representing their values on “their side” (read: Republican). Hey, here’s a novel idea…take a look at the candidates on the “other: side. You might just be surprised that at what you discover. But that would take intellectual honesty and letting go of “Us vs. Them” attitudes.

          • Aynwrong

            Same here. I have one family member in particular who started becoming really troubled by the GOP’s obvious desire to do away with Social Security & Medicare yet would never even consider a vote for the Dems.
            (I suspect Paul Ryan just made it too nakedly obvious to deny.)
            If Hillary Clinton’s name came up in conversation the word “socialist” wouldn’t be all that far behind.
            That AM radio gets people well trained.