"First you get the votes, then you take the vote,” the Washington saying goes. Paul Ryan failed to get the votes for his health bill. So he’s not taking the vote. Republican leaders told members of Congress Friday that the House vote on the American Health Care Act, which President Donald Trump demanded for Friday, will not in fact happen.
If there is a single person who made Paul Ryan the Speaker of the House, it is probably Mark Meadows. Back in 2015, Meadows, a former restaurant owner who, in 2012, was elected to represent the most conservative district in North Carolina, set into motion the events that led to Speaker John Boehner’s resignation. Meadows, who had no legislative experience, filed an obscure parliamentary procedure known as a motion to vacate that would have forced a referendum on Boehner in the House. Boehner resigned rather than face the prospect of losing that vote, and Ryan emerged as the only Speaker candidate acceptable to all the factions of the House G.O.P.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Tuesday that it would be good for U.S. foreign policy if Congress voted to authorize the war against self-described Islamic State terrorists -- putting him at direct odds with his Senate counterpart, who has rejected the idea.
After the tumultuous few weeks that led up to Paul Ryan taking over as the new House speaker, his first week on the job was a honeymoon from the Republican infighting that sidelined his predecessor, John Boehner. It was productive too. But there were signs already that the goodwill might not last long for the young speaker who faces many tough choices in the weeks ahead, including how far he is willing to push efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and other conservative priorities and risk a government shutdown.
One of Paul Ryan's last acts as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was to tweet out a blog on his committee page that highlighted “[t]he American idea: the notion that the condition of your birth doesn’t determine the outcome of your life.” One of his very first moves as House speaker was to take immigration reform off the agenda during the remaining months of President Obama’s term. Ryan appears not only to be contradicting himself through these acts, but also ignoring the extent to which where you are born determines your outcome in life. If the newly minted speaker really cared about the American idea, he would be ensuring that equality of opportunity didn’t stop at the water’s edge.
Rep. Paul Ryan has officially been elected as the 54th speaker of the House after he got the votes of 236 members by the full House of Representatives. The vote was largely a formality after House Republicans nominated him for the position on Wednesday.
Rep. Paul Ryan, the former vice-presidential candidate and soon to be speaker of the House, is smart, pleasant, and willing to compromise—a “good guy, a decent guy,” as Vice President Joe Biden said on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Ryan’s shrewd maneuvering since John Boehner announced his retirement will likely make him a powerful speaker. By conveying sincerity and civic virtue in his role as the reluctant Cincinnatus, he will take the gavel without having to promise much to the Freedom Caucus, headed by Rep. Jim Jordan, who showed what a nasty piece of work he is during the Benghazi hearings.
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) has been able to count on his Facebook page for stalwart support during his long-running battle with the House Republican leadership, including a successful effort to oust House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “Keep up the great work,” read a comment posted last week. “We the people thank you for ridding us of John Boehner!”
Rep. Paul Ryan’s conditions for becoming speaker now seem more like, well, guidelines. The great savior of the House of Representatives made explicit in the past couple of weeks that he had no interest in serving as the third-highest-ranking official in American government. He enjoys fiddling around with the tax code as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee almost as much as he enjoys shooting deer with his children. And he enjoys both things much more than he enjoys the prospect of trying in vain to persuade some 40-odd nihilists to fund the federal government every few months.
The challenge is how to provide support to the poor without reducing incentives to work.
Of course, the Earned Income Tax Credit *does* cut poverty. But our official poverty statistics don't reflect that.
Ryan and Obama's identical EITC plans are paid for in dramatically different ways. And that's why they're doomed.
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), this week revived his quest to be taken seriously as a "reformist" conservative ("reformicon" is becoming the preferred terminology) by releasing a position paper on refashioning the federal government's poverty programs .
To pay for an expanded EITC, this proposal would eliminate a number of ineffective programs, such as the Social Service Block Grant, the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program, the Economic Development Administration, and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. It also would reduce fraud in the Additional Child Tax Credit by requiring the use of Social Security numbers.
There should be a rule--or even a law--that politicians who propose "fixes" to Social Security should at least show they know something about the program. By that standard, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., would flunk. What's worse, his misunderstandings--heck, let's go ahead and call them misrepresentations--are aimed at taking your money.
At least one Republican is setting the record straight on what the Congressional Budget Office actually said this week about Obamacare and its effect on jobs. House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained in a Wednesday hearing with CBO director Steven Elmendorf that the health care reform law wouldn't cost the U.S. economy more than 2 million jobs, as many of his colleagues alleged, but that Americans would choose to work less. "I want to make sure we accurately understand what it is you are saying," Ryan said, before leading Elmendorf through a series of questions to explain the report and its findings.
A bipartisan budget agreement now appears to have sufficient support to survive a key procedural test vote in the U.S. Senate later this week. Final passage of the bill with a simple majority of senators doesn’t appear in doubt — but the legislation written by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) must first clear a procedural hurdle to end formal debate on the measure and move to final passage.
Bars set this low were made to be jumped over. And yet, it was something of a marvel on Tuesday when lawmakers from the House and the Senate took to the microphones to announce that they had reached a budget deal. The deal, which was negotiated over the past few weeks by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), would set spending for the next fiscal year at $1.012 trillion and increase it to $1.014 trillion the year after that. Should their budget framework actually pass through Congress, it would represent an increase in federal spending by $45 billion in one year and $63 billion over the course of two years.
In a major breakthrough after three years of paralyzing partisan rifts, Congress' top two budget chiefs finalized a bipartisan agreement Tuesday that would set spending levels for two years and mitigate some of the painful spending cuts required by the sequester. The deal announced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) would raise establish spending at $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 in 2015 -- up from the $967 billion required by the across-the-board sequester cuts. It provides for about $63 billion in sequester relief, divided equally among defense and non-defense programs.
Paul Ryan killed any lingering hopes of a grand bargain within moments of the budget conference kickoff on Wednesday. In his opening remarks, the Wisconsin congressman and chairman of the House budget committee laid down a firm marker against new taxes, which are essential to any major deficit reduction proposal that can pass Congress and be signed into law.