Same song, second verse is how Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan is shaping up as the expected replacement to outgoing Speaker John Boehner. Many conservative critics of Boehner have expressed disgust with his leadership in the House of Representatives because he has offered little resistance to President Obama’s leftist agenda. As Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz told the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit recently, “There’s a frustration across this country…. Every election Republicans promise to fight for American principles, and then the day after the election we come to Washington and we don’t fight for any of the principles we said we’d fight for.”
With the exit of John Boehner, conservatives hoped the next speaker would be better. So, the question is, would Ryan differ?
Early indications of a significant change with Ryan are not encouraging to constitutionalists.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz told the press corps that the president has found Ryan in the past a man he could work with. “The president believes that Congressman Ryan is someone who has given considerable thought to the significant issues that must be worked through in Congress.
Schultz specifically mentioned two issues where Ryan has worked with Obama: trade deals and immigration.
Indeed, Ryan has been a leader in Congress in supporting Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Obama administration, and has favored immigration reform with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and the expedited legalization for children of illegal immigrants who attend college.
“We hope that whoever is the next speaker assumes that role with a willingness and an interest to work with Democrats,” Schultz added.
Ryan is certainly no hard-core conservative. In the “Freedom Index” of the The New American (a congressional scorecard based on the U.S. Constitution), Ryan’s cumulative score is only 58 percent. That is only six points higher than Boehner’s score.
But are Schultz’s praises of Ryan deserved? Concerning trade, Ryan has certainly been very supportive of the various trade agreements — popularly known as ObamaTrade — that are considered by a large number of constitutionalist conservatives as threatening to America’s national sovereignty. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are so secret that they have not even been made available for members of Congress to view them!
Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) asked Ryan in June during a meeting of the House Rules Committee about this secrecy. Referring to the fact that only a select group of House members can view the documents (but cannot reveal the contents), Burgess said, “You read through this language down in the secret room and I welcome the day when people can read it.” Ryan responded that it can be read by the general public “once it’s agreed to.” This caused some to recall former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reference to the contents of ObamaCare — “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Ryan has been very supportive of the trade negotiation process, including the secrecy. And, it is feared that the trade agreements will touch on immigration, as well. This is the other area in which Obama’s press secretary praised Ryan’s help of the president.
Among the most ardent foes of illegal immigration is Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions worries that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would make major changes in America’s immigration policy — without congressional action. “There are numerous ways TPA [Trade Promotion Authority] could facilitate immigration increase above current law — and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening,” Sessions said last spring.
Sessions warned that language “already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.”
He added, “The president has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity,” and these trade deals would weaken the ability of Congress to do anything about it.
Curtis Ellis, executive director of American Jobs Alliance, was blunt in his assessment of the effect of TPP: “It is a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda.”
Obama has denied this, and Paul Ryan has supported this denial. Ryan told Newsmax that the inclusion of provisions on immigration in the TPP deal is “absolutely not true,” dismissing it as “the latest urban legend.”
WikiLeaks has published documents from the secret Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), leading Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relations for Numbers USA, to challenge the assertion of both Obama and Ryan, saying that the existence of 10 pages on immigration in the TiSA “make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration — and for them to say they are not — they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text.”
It would appear that there is at least some basis for Schultz’s expectation that Paul Ryan would “work” with Obama in the future, based on past performance. It is noteworthy that Congressman Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a staunch ally of Boehner, has come out strongly for Ryan.
Those who hope for improvement under a Ryan speakership will most likely be disappointed. Michael Needham, CEO of the conservative Heritage Action for America, speaking recently on Fox News Sunday, summed up the problem. “We need a Republican leadership that is showing conservative values. That’s not what we’ve had.”
We certainly will not get it with a speaker who works with Obama on trade agreements that diminish American national sovereignty and with the White House on a more liberal immigration policy.
