Of Committees and Conditions and Paul Ryan

In 1973, the Republican Study Committee was founded, 2 years after Nixon famously said “I am now a Keynesian in economics.” It was a more cautious and focused version of Milton Friedman’s classic “We are all Keynesians now”, made almost 10 years earlier in 1965. And all that Keynesian love - as well as Nixon’s decision in 1971 to remove the dollar from the gold standard - caused discomfort among conservative GOP members. Hence their decision to model a conservative study group, one almost diametrically opposed to the Democratic Study Group which pushed for liberal values and was founded back in 1959.

The Study Committee is, of course, alive and well today and Paul Ryan has made it clear that they have to meet his demands for him to finally take the plunge and postulate himself for Speaker of the House. The other two groups within the general GOP caucus that need to agree to Ryan's conditions are the Republican Study Group and the Freedom Caucus. The Study Group is a recent splinter group, or rebellious conservative faction if you will, of the Study Committee, having been formed earlier this year by House members critical of the now completely besieged House Leadership. One of the reasons was that the RSC had gotten too big and did not reflect their views.

The Freedom Caucus is small (36 members) agile and cohesive. At least that's what they claim they are. The goals of transparency and limited government are clear and commendable, but some Freedom Caucus members are also RSC members. So being in the belly of the beast does not bother all Freedom Caucuses it seems. But the House is all about committees and the leverage they can give to a congressman's ambitions.

So what conditions did Paul Ryan lay down in order for him to assume the role without having a countdown clock ticking down over his head, or without having to wear body armor? He wants any changes in House rules to be done by a team. That means yet another committee: The GOP House Freedom Study Committee Group On House Rules? And one can only flinch just a little imagining what any future splinter group from this theoretical committee might name itself. And he wants it to be harder to throw out any sitting Speaker of the House. Will that fly with the Freedom Caucus? And finally - he wants a better work-life balance so he can spend some precious, scavenged time with his family. Will Paul Ryan impose his will on his fellow House Republicans? Perhaps that's the wrong way to put it. Will he get people to listen to, and agree to, his set of conditions and will those conditions make it any easier for him to do his job, assuming he finally does take up the role of Speaker?

Posted by Keeley at October 20, 2015 9:42 PM
Comments
Comment #399823

To me it seems like Paul Ryan is being told something that was a joke when I was in the US Navy. “It’s your turn in the barrel Paul”. I don’t get the feeling he’s really into this Speaker position that much. I could be wrong.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 9:59 AM
Comment #399827

The original article is wrong. There are three major right wing caucuses in the House: the Freedom Caucus, the Liberty Caucus, and the Tea Party Caucus. These three caucuses have some overlap between members, but all in all, there are 84 identified members. Here is a list of who’s who in each caucus:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/13/1431383/-House-Republican-Party-Factions-and-the-Numbers-Game

Speak, I don’t think Ryan will accept the job either, because he is essentially asking for a complete surrender by the various right wing caucuses. And remember, Ryan is not a member of any of these three extremist groups. The far right has already staged a coup in order to take over the GOP. They’ve already upended Boehner and his successor, McCarthy. Why should they suddenly give in?

Maybe an appeal for party unity will convince them to cave and go along with Ryan. Anyone with common sense would go along with that. But these people are hair-on-fire, howling at the moon. barking mad conservatives. These are people who are willing to hold the US economy ransom and plunge the country into depression unless their demands are met. These are people willing to shut down the government. They can see the GOP establishment candidates running for president are weak. They can see Trump and Carson are Cruz are winning over half the vote in polls. Why should the extremist wing care about party unity, especially when they are being shut out of the party’s political agenda, from positions on House committees, and from the ability to introduce legislation and amendments? Why should they care when they are this close to achieving control of the party? Having brought the Republican party to this point in a crisis, why should they blink?

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 12:10 PM
Comment #399829

phx8, plus I think Ryan knows that it’s a lot more fun outside of the barrel than it is inside of it. Who wouldn’t? Whoever gets the job is in for a real drubbing.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #399833

Curse those right-wing extremists and their calls for limited government, lower taxes, individual rights and less spending.

LOL!!!

You guys are a real hoot.

Posted by: kctim at October 21, 2015 12:40 PM
Comment #399834

They can call for whatever they want. They can call for limited government, but under Bush they grew it dramatically. They can call for lower taxes; what they actually do is crater the budget, turning balanced budgets into $1.4 trillion deficits with skyrocketing debt. They can call for individual rights, namely, their right to impose their beliefs on others and to make it easy for maniacs to obtain assault weapons. That is why they are in a minority.

When they use a minority position to threaten the well being of the country unless their agenda is met, whether through a government shutdown or bringing about an economic depression by refusing to raise the debt ceiling, then yes, these people are extremists.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 12:57 PM
Comment #399835

Meanwhile, Biden will not run. Polls show almost all of his support will go to HRC. Looks like a cakewalk into the Democratic nomination for Hillary.

Like I have said many times, enjoy the 2016 landslide. I think she has an excellent chance of owning the Senate, and if the landslide is big enough, maybe even the House. This is going to be epic!

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #399836

The right wing wet dream is over, done. Joe just announced that he will not seek the Presidential nomination for 2016. This sets the stage for HRC’s appearance tomorrow in front of the Special Committee To Try To Take Down Hillary. My guess is she will hand their backsides to them after she spanks the crap out of ‘em.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 1:01 PM
Comment #399838

”I don’t get the feeling he’s really into this Speaker position that much. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 9:59 AM

We certainly do not need a reluctant Speaker or absent warrior.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:16 PM
Comment #399839

Um, those groups are in response to the left wing establishment Republicans who grow government and the debt. They are in response to the left wing establishment Republicans who believe the desires of a group trump the rights of an individual. They are response to the left wing establishment Republicans who stand for taking away our 2nd Amendment rights without proper respect for the Constitution.
Basically, instead of being the progressive Republicans of today, they are the Republicans of 20+ years ago.

“then yes, these people are extremists.”

Yeah yeah, we all know how those who dare quote the founders and actually support the Constitution are now considered extremists by you guys.

“Meanwhile, Biden will not run.”

Yeah, I just seen that. Bummer.
While I think that’s terrible, and probably devastating for the country, it’s probably what’s best for Biden.

Posted by: kc_tim at October 21, 2015 1:19 PM
Comment #399840

phx8 writes; “These are people who are willing to hold the US economy ransom and plunge the country into depression unless their demands are met. These are people willing to shut down the government.”

What a silly construction of the duties of the congress. Spending bills originate here. An operating budget is voted upon to keep the government funded.

A president vetoes the budget as it doesn’t have his favorite pork in it. He veto’s it. The president elects to close down the government.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:21 PM
Comment #399841

” They can call for limited government, but under Bush they grew it dramatically.”

Good Lord phx8, are you so mentally challenged as to not recognize that the conservative house members are not Bushies?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:24 PM
Comment #399842

phx8” “…bringing about an economic depression by refusing to raise the debt ceiling…”

Does the writer have any conception of how absurd this comment is?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:27 PM
Comment #399843

This is going to be epic!
Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2015 1:00 PM

Many dem party leaders are building an Ark in their backyard.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 1:29 PM
Comment #399844

“We certainly do not need a reluctant Speaker or absent warrior.” No we don’t, but that is what you get when your primary goal is to not govern. You end up being unable to govern.

Who knew? When everything you strive for is to shut down government and not use the power of governing to actually govern that you would end up being unable to govern.

This must seem like rocket science to the tea party types but it really is evident to anyone else who has even a desultory knowledge of government, governing and the implications of not doing so. You end up with what the Republican party has turned in to. A fractious gathering of individuals that are unable to gain any consensus on anything.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 2:24 PM
Comment #399845

Poor Speaks…still hitting the sauce hard. His second paragraph immediately above is unintelligible to sober folks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 2:31 PM
Comment #399847

I know it’s difficult but just stay with me a little on this. If you set out with an objective to not accomplish something then are flummoxed when something is not accomplished, you are stupid and should not be in a position to make decisions. See, simple.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 2:41 PM
Comment #399848

Well done Speakee, we just love your “bottle” logic.

Someone told me that Speaks drinks to steady his nerves. Last night he got so steady he couldn’t move.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 2:47 PM
Comment #399849

I know things must be tough for your type right now. You can’t give a way the 3rd highest office of the country, your top candidate for President is a former Democrat, you are trying to mount a campaign against a formidable female Presidential candidate by waging war on women, you completely miss the mark on what Americans want from gun control even by a majority of NRA members, your ideas on foreign policy consist of bomb, bomb, bomb, you don’t see any problem with race because you don’t see any racism, I could go on and on and on but hey you already know all of this. Perhaps a little of that sauce you are talking about would help? If nothing else you could drown your sorrows?

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 3:00 PM
Comment #399850

LOL…Speak is so mentally confused he has resorted to characterizing me by “type”. Please consider going to an AA meeting…today.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 3:10 PM
Comment #399851

Actually, I am glad Joe isn’t going to run. We need to focus on the Socialist and the seriously politically flawed lady.

Bernie is the candidate who promises to remove capital from capitalism.

Hillary is the candidate who runs on her genitalia.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 3:16 PM
Comment #399852

Oh confusion abounds today, and will for some time to come, some introspection might give you some hints on where it originates.

Posted by: Speak4all at October 21, 2015 3:18 PM
Comment #399854

Everybody is a former something. One of our greatest presidents was Ronald Reagan, who was also a former democrat.

Hillary Clinton is anything but formidable. She will be the best candidate to run against Trump. Trump will be the only one with enough anti-PC to deal with her.

HRC is distrusted and a liar to a majority of Americans. Why would the American people vote for someone they don’t trust?

Trump is a political outsider and the way most Americans feel, how could he be any worse than what we have had for the past 7 years? How could he be worse than the establishment politicians who have sold the country out time and time again?

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 3:40 PM
Comment #399856

“Why would the American people vote for someone they don’t trust” Because they are hard core democrats and vote for anything that has a “D” after their name. They would vote for Manson if he had a “D” after his name.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 21, 2015 4:12 PM
Comment #399857

You are correct KAP, it was more of a rhetorical question. I just read a poll that stated 49% of democrats now support socialism. There is no longer a Democratic Party, it is now the socialist party of America. The question is, what are those bewildered democrats who have lost their party going to do? Where will they go?

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 4:28 PM
Comment #399858

Hey Speak, are you practicing your “goose-step” for Hillary’s hoped for inauguration?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 21, 2015 6:38 PM
Comment #399861

Hopefully Blaine they become independents and vote with their brain instead of party loyalty.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 21, 2015 7:19 PM
Comment #399862

PS, Blaine those 49% are Brain dead already and no hope for them!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 21, 2015 7:21 PM
Comment #399864

KAP, lol.

The democrats on WB are not typical of democrats. There will always be the psyho’s of the Democratic Party, who want socialism and tax and spend. But there are those who don’t feel this way. These are the ones who are becoming independents. The ability of the Republican Party to literally take over state legislatures and governorships is proof of the demise of the Democratic Party. And as the left loves to point out, the more state legislatures taken over, the more redistricing of congressional districts to favor republicans. This is a fact of life, both parties have done it. Hence, republicans gain more control in the House. And so it goes. But the left , especially those like the ones on WB, are incapable of understanding this.

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 7:49 PM
Comment #399865

Here is another example of the democrats disconnect with the American people:

On October 21, a CNN/ORC poll showed that opposition to expanded gun control is higher after the attack on Umpqua Community College (UCC) than before the attack.

According to the poll, 52 percent of Americans now oppose gun control, which is up 3 percentage points from where gun control opposition registered in June. And the 52 percent of current opposition is up 8 percentage points from where opposition to gun control was just one month after the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Forty-six percent of Americans polled by CNN support more gun control, while six percent were indifferent.

In response to a poll question that asked if carrying guns “makes public places safer,” a plurality of Americans–35 percent–answered in the affirmative.

Moreover, seventy-five percent of respondents said it is important that any new gun control proposals have the support of “elected officials from both Democrat and Republican Parties” before being implemented. This is a crucial point in the wake of the UCC shooting, especially because President Obama responded to the shooting by hinting at gun confiscation, then talking about signing a new executive order to unilaterally put more gun control in place.

If the CNN poll is any indicator, 75 percent of the American people oppose these kinds of actions.

The CNN poll shows that a majority of independents–56 percent–oppose more gun control following the UCC attack. And Republican opposition to gun control is at 76 percent. Democrats continue to be the driving force behind the minority in support of gun control, with 74 percent of Democrats favoring more gun laws.

After all the hype from the left on gun control and almost 300 comments in Warren Porter’s attack on gun rights; it turns out that Americans do not want gun control. They want people to have the right to protect themselves. Wouldn’t it be interesting if there was a national vote on whether there should be “gun free zones”. How do you think Americans would vote?

Total disconnect…

Posted by: Blaine at October 21, 2015 8:48 PM
Comment #399874

“Hopefully Blaine they become independents and vote with their brain instead of party loyalty.”

Not going to happen, KAP. They are dependent and for their own personal comfort and convenience, will always choose to be dependent.
As long as the liberal candidate supports abortion, gay marriage, redistribution of wealth, and equal outcome over equal rights, they will vote for him/her.

Posted by: kctim at October 22, 2015 8:56 AM
Comment #399875

As I said tim they are all BRAIN DEAD!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 22, 2015 10:11 AM
Post a comment