Speaker Ryan Praises Loudermilk, Provides Path To Work With Trump
Yesterday while on a trip to Washington I was able to attend a meeting with Paul Ryan, my Congressman Barry Loudermilk, and a group of Loudermilk’s supporters.
Speaker Ryan praised Loudermilk as a “do-er”, and noted that he was one of the top freshmen in this Congressional Class, by passing three bills. Loudermilk noted that the success was largely due to a return to “regular order”, where even members of the Freedom Caucus can work within the committee system to produce and pass legislation with a bottom-up approach.
Ryan remarked on the agenda that he expects to frame going forward, noting that there needs to be a Congressional check on Executive branch regulation. He noted that more than half of the states have a process where legislation that created regulation authority requires those regulations to be returned to the legislature for approval before implementation. He sees this as a path to regain control from unelected regulators in various agencies who now create their own laws with little check or oversight.
As for his working relationship with prospective nominee Donald Trump, the Speaker noted that he wants the GOP to have tangible, specific agenda items to demonstrate conservative governance, and he would be hoping to frame a campaign that is based on specifics and issues rooted in conservatism.
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is pretty funny:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/trump-and-ryan-will-stay-together-for-the-party.html
Excerpt:
“On Wednesday, Team Trump announced that two supply-side quacks in good standing were revising the nominee’s tax plan so that it would explode the deficit in a more responsible, mainstream manner.”
I want to believe this column so bad. Trump is not going off the cliff, is open to modification by smart conservative experts and that Ryan and Trump can come to a clear agenda.
Speaker Ryan’s comments sound like more “Give us the House then the Senate then we can do something. ” They always have an excuse not to fight. Now would have been a great time to show us their governance agenda and make it stick, but they gave their leverage away when they voted for the 12/18/15 omni-bus bill. As a reminder both Congressman Loudermilk and Graves (my congressman) voted for it.
I’m sure this summer they will have many show votes of how the would govern if they had the presidency as well.
I’m not a Trump fan, but Trump is a result of just what you heard from Speaker Ryan, Graves and Loudermilk. It’s going to get a lot worse for the GOP before someone gets it. Vote Mickey Tuck in Ga. 14th.
Let’s talk about that omnibus bill for a minute — the one that people complain about because it “fully funded planned parenthood,” even though there was no Planned Parenthood funding in it. If not Planned Parenthood, there was some horrible thing in it that you don’t like. Why should a principled conservative vote for it?
When the Omnibus came to the House from the Senate, it contained a measure inserted by Alabama’s Senator Shelby that would have taken away Georgia’s water rights from Lake Lanier. It would have ended the water wars in a way that would have been very bad for Georgia. When the Georgia delegation discovered the language, they went to Speaker Ryan, and in essence said, “If you want our votes on the omnibus, you have to get rid of this language.” There was some heavy lobbying going on, and the language was removed from the omnibus. With that vital goal accomplished, the Georgia delegation (with the exception of Jody Hice) kept their word, and voted in favor of the omnibus.
What lessons can be learned here? Legislating is about compromise. Sometimes in order to get what you want, you have to give up something else. Having good relations with leadership can smooth the way to passing something you feel is vital. Yelling and screaming at leadership so you can please the home folks can be detrimental to getting what you want done.
I understand about compromise. A man unwilling to compromise is a man destined to live a lonely life.
We’ve been compromising for 7 years and received very little but paid a heavy price. Maybe our side is just poor compromisers or not willing to… Or maybe they don’t stand for what they tell us.
Graves has refused to debate his opponents. I know he has much to lose and very little to gain, but if he really believes in his voting record he should have no problem standing up and defending it and letting the people decide. Instead he’d rather hide behind the uninformed voter that will show up on May 24th and vote for the incumbent.
I’m no conservative but I get why people like ljrflyusmc are frustrated with the Republican establishment. 6 years of complete government control from 2000-2006 led to political disaster. Now, after taking back full control of Congress, the establishment has done nothing to set an agenda or pass meaningful legislation. Just more excuses about Obama bullying them. Newt Gingrich isn’t my kind of political leader but I do acknowledge that he moved the original Clinton administration to the right. He made a bunch of mistakes but at least people on his side knew he was doing something.
Bingo!
Very good post, I agree!
I don’t really think you can say the GOP has done nothing. We’ve lowered discretionary spending beyond what was hoped for in 2011. We’ve fought back against Obama’s executive overreach, including the court’s Obamacare decision today, and the pending Supreme Court decision on executive amnesty. We’ve eliminated some of the provisions of Obamacare. And we’ve largely prevented anything on the president’s legislative agenda from advancing.
In Clnton, you had a somewhat willing partner who wanted to do something to advance his legacy. The parties were a lot less polarized than they are now, which made deal making easier. And the economy was in better shape. Obama has no desire to negotiate, especially when he sees the GOP’s circular firing squad, with GOP partisans blaming the GOP instead of him.
“Against the Dangerous Myth that the GOP Has ‘Given Obama Everything He Wanted’”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435078/republicans-didnt-cave-obama?target=author&tid=23105
Could they have done more? Sure. Have they done a lot? Yes, absolutely. As Jon rightly pointed out. Sadly, all that seems to count for nothing.
I would add a dig while I’m at it. Part of the reason they haven’t been able to do more is because of the rump/Trump wing of the party, the part of the GOP that thinks Westmoreland is a RINO squish, has refused to approve things that weren’t “pure” or whatever. So now you have the so-called purists who refused to compromise, getting in bed with the biggest compromiser ever (if you can even call Trump’s rudderless stream-of-consciousness policy positions compromising). It stinks. It stinks real bad.
I’ve been trying to figure out how to say this without being snarky, but that picture up there is the essence of the GOP demographic problem.
Maybe a lady or a person of color brought in the pastries?
I just wondered if the photographer cracked a joke about Charlie’s mom right before he snapped it. It’s a hard look he’s got there.
What do you have against southern guys, no tie ?
To paraphrase The Eiger it appears someone has found some mayonaise. If you also identify it as shinola does it help the taste as well?
I’ve actually come up with a better analogy when it comes to supporting Trump.
Voting for Trump is like putting a double helping of sriracha hot sauce on your sandwich. At first it sounds really good because it’s new, bold and different from plain old mayonnaise. But what you are left with is a half eaten sandwich, a mouth that is on fire and a rectum that will be raw and burning the next day. Mayo may be plain, but most of the time it can get the job done with out all of the aftereffects.
Barry & Paul look like they’re about to draw six-shooters on each other.
I remain curious about the proposed idea that law can delegate responsibility to regulate to the executive branch, but require additional legislative approval before implementation. It may work in states, but so does the line-item veto. If anyone does any research on Constitutional law regarding the non-delegation doctrine, it would be interesting to read.