Paul Ryan caught buying $350 bottle of wine

By David Edwards/Raw Story

The lawmaker responsible for crafting a Republican budget plan that would effectively kill Medicare isn't as frugal when it comes to his own money.

Rutgers associate business professor Susan Feinberg told Talking Points Memo that she was at a Washington, D.C. restaurant Tuesday when she saw Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) with a bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru at his table.

According to their wine list, the restaurant sells each bottle for $350.

Feinberg was even more shocked when a waiter delivered a second bottle to the table.

"I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week," she said.

So Feinberg approached Ryan's table and asked him "how he could live with himself."

Ryan, claiming that the other men had ordered the wine, acted surprised to find out the pricetag. "Is that how much it was?" he asked.

When Feinberg asked if Ryan's dinner companions were lobbyists, one of the men stood up and said, "Fuck her."

Members of Congress are barred from accepting anything of value from lobbyists. The Ethics Committee must give written permission before members can accept gifts worth over $100 from friends.

Ryan later told TPM that the two men, who he described as "friends," were economists that he had invited to dinner to discuss quantitative easing and monetary policy, but he refused to give their names.

"I didn't order - they ordered," he said. "I had one glass with my water, and when [Feinberg] was talking about how expensive it was, I didn't even know [the price]."

Ryan said that after learning the price, he decided to pay for one of the bottles and even produced a receipt to prove it.

"I think it's stupid under any circumstance to pay anything close to 100 dollars for a bottle of wine," he said.

Paul Ryan Responds To David Brooks: We Won’t Cut Tax Loopholes To Reduce Deficit, Only To Finance More Tax Cuts

By Alex Seitz-Wald/Think progress

As the August debt ceiling deadline looms and Republicans continue refusing to consider revenue increases, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks excoriated the GOP for its intransigence. Writing yesterday that it “may no longer be a normal party” but rather a movement of “fanatic[s]” with a “sacred fixation” on tax cuts, Brooks slammed the GOP for rejecting a “no-brainer” compromise with Democrats, which would include closing tax loopholes for things like corporate jet ownership:

On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

But Brooks’ plea for sanity was lost on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), who responded to the column on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham’s show this morning. Ryan said that if Republicans gave up the loopholes now without securing a deal to lower marginal tax rates overall, they would lose an opportunity to demand new tax cuts in the future:

RYAN: What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then you can’t lower tax rates. So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can lower those tax rates. If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need lower tax rates by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high.

Listen here:

Ryan is arguing that raising taxes on corporate jet owners and others is only acceptable if the money raised is plowed back into new tax cuts, not to paying down the deficit. He is clearly more interested in cutting taxes than dealing with the deficit, and is willing to let these egregious loopholes stay in the tax code until he can best exploit their removal to lower taxes sometime in the future.

Given the conservative preference for cutting taxes on high-income earning “job creators,” its conceivable Ryan would use the new taxes on corporate jet owners to help fund a new tax cut for people who happen to own corporate jets. Ironically, just moments earlier in the interview, Ryan attacked President Obama for wanting to close the loopholes, saying doing so would generate an insignificant about of revenue to pay down the deficit. But when it comes to tax cuts, closing those same loopholes would apparently generate plenty of revenue.

Report: Paul Ryan May Personally Benefit From Preserving Billions In Taxpayer Oil Subsidies

By Lee Fang 

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the architect of the GOP budget plan, has put forth a plan that calls for ending a number of tax subsidies. However, he has hedged multiple times when asked about oil subsidies. When given the opportunity to end billions in taxpayer giveaways to big oil companies, Ryan voted to preserve the generous subsidies.

The Daily Beast’s Daniel Stone is reporting that Ryan’s protection of billions in wasteful oil subsidies may relate to his own personal fortune. Newly released personal finance disclosures reveal that Ryan and his wife “own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s budget plan.” Stone reports that those companies are among his most valuable assets:

Ryan’s father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.

Some of these firms would be eligible for portions of the $45 billion in energy tax breaks and subsidies over 10 years protected in the Wisconsin lawmaker’s proposed budget. “Those [energy developing companies] benefit a lot from these subsidies,” explained Russ Harding, an energy policy analyst with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, when presented with the situation, without reference to Ryan. “Without those, they’re going to be less profitable.”

According to disclosure reports reviewed by ThinkProgress, other major proponents of extending billions in oil subsidies are also heavily invested in oil and drilling companies. For example, Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) owns up to $250,000 in ExxonMobil stock, among other fossil fuel investments.

Embattled Wisconsin Republicans court Rep. Paul Ryan’s support in recall fight

By Eric W. Dolan

Wisconsin Republican state senators are seeking Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), author of the proposed Republican budget plan, to join their fundraising efforts as they face recall elections.

Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, is one of thefeatured attendees of a fundraiser this Friday for recently recalled Republican state Sen. Albert Darling of Milwaukee. Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R), Gov. Scott Walker (R), and U.S Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) are also among the featured guests at the event, which charges $30 for admission.

Another Republican state senator, Dan Kapanke of La Crosse, previously invited Ryan to a fundraiser in May, but Ryan was unable to attend because of a family event.

The liberal groups Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy For America have raised over $200,000 as part of a media campaign to oust the Republican state senators Kapanke, Darling and Randy Hopper of Green Bay. They said Ryan's invitation to these fundraisers shows that the embattled senators support the U.S. congressman's budget cutting agenda.

"Alberta Darling is part of the same national Republican war on working families that is trying to end Medicare and cut programs like BadgerCare," Neil Sroka, PCCC spokesman, said. "Paul Ryan's endorsement of her will be an issue in this campaign."

A survey conducted by the Democrat-affiliated firm Public Policy Polling in May found that a majority of voters in Wisconsin had an unfavorable view of Ryan, whose budget proposal includes privatizing Medicare. Forty-six percent had an unfavorable view of the U.S. congressman, compared to 41 percent who had a favorable view.

The Wisconsin Elections Board has certified recall elections this summer for six Republican state senators and three Democratic state senators.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama Over Medicare "Cuts" As They Praise Ryan Plan, Which Includes Same "Cuts"

From Media Matters:

Right-wing media figures are claiming that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal does not cut Medicare spending, while accusing President Obama of having "cut" $500 billion from Medicare as part of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, these "cuts" come through eliminating parts of Medicare "seen as ineffective or wasteful," and Ryan's plan retains this $500 billion in reductions, while increasing out-of-pocket costs for seniors.

Right-Wing Media Figures Claim Obama Health Law "Cuts" Medicare Spending While Ryan Plan Does Not

Limbaugh: "Paul Ryan Doesn't Rape Medicare To The Tune Of $500 Billion. Your Guy Did."From the May 26 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Who is it that, in his own health care bill, took $500 billion out of Medicare in order to get his total price tag in under a trillion dollars? It was your guy, it was Barack Obama. It's there, $500 billion gone. Ryan didn't do that. Paul Ryan doesn't rape Medicare to the tune of $500 billion. Your guy did. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show,5/26/11]

Bozell Denies There Are Medicare Cuts In Ryan Plan, Then Says, "Obama Is Taking $500 Billion Out Of Medicare." From the May 27 edition of Fox & Friends:

BRENT BOZELL (Media Research Center president): Both NBC and ABC reported cuts. And you heard the ABC reporter, Ann Curry, say "deep cuts." Folks, here are the numbers. You tell me if they're deep cuts. The present allocation for Medicare, $563 billion. What Paul Ryan proposes by 2021 is $953 billion. Folks, that's a 70 percent increase in Medicare. And ABC and NBC reported that as deep cuts. Folks, that's dishonest, There is no other way of putting this. That's lying on national television. And that's setting up seniors. That's a scare tactic, and maybe it worked. 

CLAYTON MORRIS (guest co-host): Well, are Democrats picking up on some of the talking points here, Brent, because The Wall Street Journal on April 4th reported that the Ryan plan would effectively end Medicare. And then all these Democrats jumped on that and said, "Hey, The Wall Street Journal said it's gonna end Medicare as we know it," and then you started to hear it trickle into the mainstream media. 

BOZELL: Sure. Well, why don't they look at Obama's health care budget? Obama is taking $500 billion out of Medicare. So, if you're worried about Medicare cuts, why don't you look at Obamacare, which takes it away? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/27/11]

In Fact, Savings Come From Reducing Inefficiency; Experts Predict Quality Of Care Under Medicare Will Not Decline

FactCheck: Cost-Saving Provisions Are "Not A Slashing Of The Current Medicare Budget Or Benefits." According to FactCheck.org: 

Whatever you want to call them, it's a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It's true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage's private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats' bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors. [FactCheck.org, 3/19/10]

PolitiFact: Reductions "Aimed At Eliminating Parts Of The Medicare Program Seen As Ineffective Or Wasteful." From PolitiFact.com:

Under the act, Congress voted to reduce $500 billion in projected Medicare spending over the next 10 years, not in one substantial chunk. The reductions are aimed at eliminating parts of the Medicare program seen as ineffective or wasteful. For example, the plan phases out payments to the Medicare Advantage program, an optional program set up under the George W. Bush administration, where seniors could opt to enroll in a private insurance program and the federal government would subsidize a portion of their premium. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

PolitiFact: CBO Says "Spending For Medicare Will Continue To Increase Over The Next Decade." From PolitiFact.com:

On the surface, it may seem that lawmakers voted to cut Medicare spending under the new health law, but they instead cut the rate of growth. As a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office notes, the amount of spending for Medicare will continue to increase over the next decade, from $499 billion in 2009 to $929 billion in 2020. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

PolitiFact: "Experts Say The Quality Of Care Should Not Be Shortchanged." From PolitiFact:

 [E]ven though $500 billion in spending is being reduced, health care experts say the quality of care should not be shortchanged.

"Some (reforms) increase Medicare spending to improve benefits and coverage," said Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, in a video on the foundation's website.

"Other provisions reduce the growth in Medicare spending to help the program operate more efficiently and help fund coverage expansions to the uninsured in the underlying health reform legislation," Neuman said. "Other provisions are designed to improve the delivery of care and quality of care." [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

New England Journal Of Medicine: Affordable Care Act Eliminates "Substantial Overpayments" To Medicare Advantage Plans. From an article by Robert A. Berenson in The New England Journal of Medicine:

 [T]he currently projected savings come from two main sources: reduced payments to private Medicare Advantage plans and reduced payment updates for hospitals and most other providers. A phased elimination of the substantial overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which now enroll nearly 25% of Medicare beneficiaries, will produce an estimated $132 billion in savings over 10 years.

[...]

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has been calling for such fee reductions for years, to keep Medicare Advantage from undermining traditional Medicare.

The ACA also produces nearly $200 billion in savings by assuming that providers can improve their productivity as firms in other industries have done. On the basis of this presumed improvement, the law reduces Medicare's annual "market basket" updates for most types of providers -- a provision that has generated controversy. [The New England Journal of Medicine, 7/8/10]

FactCheck: Changes To Medicare Advantage Come With Extra Benefits For All Medicare Enrollees. According to FactCheck.org: 

The CBO has estimated that the move would change the value of the extra benefits Medicare Advantage participants get, but they would not receive fewer benefits than the rest of seniors who aren't on the Advantage plans. The bill does add some extras for Medicare beneficiaries, eliminating copays and deductibles for preventive services, for example. [FactCheck.org, 12/2/09]

Ryan Plan Retains $500 Billion Of Savings From Obama Health Law

PolitiFact: "Ryan's Plan ... Intends To Keep The $500 Billion In Reductions." From PolitiFact.com:

Ryan's plan, as noted in this news article from the Associated Press, also intends to keep the $500 billion in reductions that Republicans have criticized Democrats for approving under the Obama plan.

[...]

The vote taken by Congress was not to cut Medicare but to reduce the rate of growth by $500 billion by targeting inefficiencies in the program. That's a cost-reduction plan that Ryan himself kept intact in his own budget proposal. [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11]

Ryan Plan Privatizes Medicare

LA Times: "Under Ryan's Proposal, Seniors And Others On Medicare Would Begin Receiving A Set Amount Of Money ... To Offset The Cost Of Buying A Private Insurance Plan." The Los Angeles Times reports:

Under Ryan's proposal, seniors and others on Medicare would begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, to offset the cost of buying a private insurance plan that would replace the federal government's Medicare plan.

Wealthier and healthier seniors would receive less, while poorer and sicker beneficiaries would get more.

This voucher system -- or "premium support," as Ryan calls it -- would give the typical 65-year-old American $8,000 annually to buy a health plan, about the same amount of money that analysts expect the Medicare program would spend on that senior in 2022 under the current program. [The Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]

CBO: Ryan Plan Would Increase Seniors' Out-Of-Pocket Health Care Costs

AP: "CBO: Big Health Cost Shift To Elderly In GOP Plan." From an April 6 Associated Press article, headlined "CBO: Big Health Cost Shift To Elderly In GOP Plan":

Most future retirees would pay considerably more for health care under the new budget proposed by House Republicans, according to an analysis by nonpartisan experts for Congress that signals problems ahead for the plan.

The fiscal blueprint would put people now 54 and younger in a different kind of health care program when they retire, unlike the Medicare that their parents and grandparents have known. Instead of coverage for a set of benefits prescribed from Washington, they'd get a federal payment to buy private insurance from a choice of government-regulated plans.

"A typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal," the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in an analysis released late Tuesday.

The CBO said over time future retirees would pay much more, partly because the Medicare benefits package would be more expensive to deliver through private insurers. By 2030, the government payment would cover only about one-third of the typical retiree's total health care costs, the budget office said.

The sweeping fiscal plan by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would reduce total federal spending, deficits and debt, saving money for federal taxpayers. But it would be tempered by a cost shift to future retirees. [Associated Press, 4/6/11]

CBPP: CBO Found That Typical Medicare Beneficiary's "Annual Out-Of-Pocket Costs Would More Than Double." From the CBPP report:

Since the Ryan proposal would reduce the federal government's contribution for beneficiaries' health care costs even as it caused total costs to increase, beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending would rise dramatically.

[...]

CBO also finds that this beneficiary's annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double -- from $6,150 to $12,500.  In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater. 

The report included this graph showing the projected increase in seniors' health care costs under Ryan's plan:

[CBPP, 4/7/11, emphasis in the original]

Rep. Paul Ryan blames town hall backlash on ThinkProgress

By Eric W. Dolan

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) blamed the liberal blog ThinkProgress and others for some of the rowdy town hall meetings he recently faced.

"My town halls were phenomenally, overwhelmingly supportive," the congressman told Bloomberg. "And this was after – you know, it was reported by the media that MoveOn, ThinkProgress, the labor council from Milwaukee were doing training sessions and trying to stack the crowds."

An audience at a town hall in Milton, Wisconsin booed Ryan in April when he tried to defend his proposal to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

ThinkProgress denied the allegation that it stacked the crowds at town hall meetings.

"We didn’t bus people in, tell anyone to attend, or in any other way coordinate with Wisconsinites to oppose Ryan’s reforms,"Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress explained. "While it is true Ryan did find overwhelming support at most of his meetings — receiving at least two standing ovations and several requests that he run for president — the Congressman was also routinely challenged by his constituents on his plan to lower tax cuts for the rich."

Ryan told ABC's Christiane Amanpour that the outraged constituents he and other Republican congressmen recently faced at town hall meetings was "a sign of misinformation perpetrated out there."

M.C.L Comment: Yeah you're right Pauly it's Think Progress' fault  never mind the fact most sane people are against your budget.