Roundup of Republican Veep Candidate Paul Ryan on SciTech and Energy Policy

As all the world knows, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) was tapped by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to run on the ticket as the vice-presidential candidate. Lots of folks are focusing on Rep. Ryan's views with regard to health care, the economy, and the budget deficit. Below is potpourri of his views gleaned from around the web with regard to issues involving science, technology, and energy policy: 

Climate Change – Wrote an op/ed back in 2009 decrying Climategate as “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion.” Voted NO on the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade scheme back in 2009.

Reproductive Issues – Straight down-the-line pro-life - 100 Percent rating by National Right to Life Committee.  A co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2011 that would grant personhood to embryos immediately after “fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent.” Could possibly outlaw in vitro fertilization procedures.

Human Biotech – Voted for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act that aimed to criminalize any attempts at cloning with a fine of $1 million and/or ten years in jail.

General Energy- Says tax reform would end all energy subsidies and tax loopholes. Did vote NO against the Bush Administration’s Comprehensive Energy Plan. Somewhat inconsistently, he did vote in June against an amendment to the National Defense Appropriation Act that would have denied $150 million in subsidies to a failing uranium enrichment plant in Ohio.

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository – Voted for an amendment in June that would continue funding Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process for the facility.

Drug Legalization - Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in D.C. in 1999. Research shows that needle exchange programs do save lives by limiting the spread of HIV among injection drug users.

Space Exploration – Voted NO on the last two NASA authorization bills, but did vote YES for the 2004 Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments.

Biological Evolution – No known views with regard to how to "teach the controvery" in public school biology classes, but happy to report that he favors school choice.

For a more general take on Ryan's and other pols' views and votes, visit the On the Issues site.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Oh, the perils of a Congressman running for the presidency: the voting record. Maybe Obama and his three years of "present" had it right.

  • Hyperion||

    I like Ryans views on the AGW scam, and won't bash him for his pro-life stand. However, his views on medical marijuana I find quite troubling.

    So wtf is it, Ryan, with your views on medical weed? You think we don't have enough non-violent weed users in prison already? Necons and SoCons, still in charge of the GOP. They apparently want us Libertarians out. How the hell did Rand get a speaking spot at the convention? Just for that endorsement? Is Romney really naive enough to think that endorsement, which most of us did not like, is going to get Libertarians to vote for him?

  • ||

    Reproductive Issues – Straight down-the-line pro-life - 100 Percent rating by National Right to Life Committee.

    I wonder how many abortion clinics he had to bomb to earn that.

  • ||

    Megan: Hey, you're really hardcore, aren't you?

    Mac: Oh, well, you know. I mean, if you really wanna see hardcore... (hands her a piece of paper)

    Megan: What's this?

    Mac: That’s the list of doctors I'm gonna kill.

    Megan: There's two already crossed out.

    Mac: Yeah, I know.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Conclusion: Paul Ryan is a douchebag.

  • Hyperion||

    I don't think he is a douchebag, but he's sure not a Libertarian. Obama now, he is a certifiable douchebag.

  • ||

    But according to John, even examining his record with any criticism at all or claiming he isn't libertarian == voting for Obama.

    So cut it out.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The state where I reside has already voted for Obama for me. So I can vote for Johnson, Romney, or not vote and get all of and none of the benefit of doing all those things at once.

  • Randian||

    The state where I reside is where the pols scrabble for every last vote.

    I am still voting for Johnson. F it.

  • Hyperion||

    same here, but even if I was in a state that it could go either way, I would still vote for Johnson.

  • ||

    I am going to give john the benefit of the doubt and say he is nursing a Monday hangover.

    John is a conservative with some libertarian leanings so he probably drank all weekend when heard Ryan got the VP pick in celebration.

    He is probably not on his "a" game.

  • ||

    I think his fight is not really with real libertarians, but he is making an emotional argument for the hearts of people like himself libertarian leaning conservatives.

    There is real concern that the choice of Romney will cause that wing of the party to stay at home, or that they might actually be swayed by a strong libertarian with a proven track record like Johnson.

    This is causing the a vote for anyone other than the Republican is a vote for DOOM mentality to skyrocket on the right.

    I've been getting into arguments with my more conservative friends and family about this since I declared back when Johnson stepped out of the Republican race and declared his intention to run as a Libertarian. So I am quite familiar with his arguments and thinking.

  • T o n y||

    John is 100% correct on the premise that there are only two choices in each presidential election. It's just the way the system is set up, and I don't know about John but I'm not fond of that system--I'm just aware with 100% certainty that the result of it will be either a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office.

    He pretty much makes the same practical case I do. Vote for one of the two parties that most aligns with your political worldview and then do what you can to influence it (that's usually done in primaries). The only difference is he watches FOX News and listens to talk radio so he is convinced--from sources known to make people dumber than if they hadn't consumed any media at all--that the correct choice is Republicans.

  • ||

    I'm just aware with 100% certainty that the result of it will be either a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office.

    How old are you TONY?

    I ask cuz i am old enough to remember Ross Perot in 1992. His whole campaign was based around balancing the budget.

    He got 18.9% of the vote and lost...yet the budget was balanced despite the fact that Bush and Clinton did not want to talk one bit about it during the campaign.

    You are wrong. 3rd party candidates can change the direction of policy and change the course of elections.

  • T o n y||

    That much is true, or at least used to be, but I think since Nader people are acutely aware of third party candidates being spoilers for their preferred major-party candidate.

    I'm of two minds on this aspect of third-party candidacies. It's certainly valuable to have a guy on the debate stage willing to engage subjects other than what the major parties want to. But as he will certainly not be president, he's also taking time away from the candidates who actually have a shot. Besides, Perot was batshit insane and his policy obsessions have not helped political discourse or policy outcomes, in my opinion.

  • ||

    John is 100% correct on the premise that there are only two choices in each presidential election.

    This statement is false, period.

    You can nuance it and say there are only two possible candidates who will have a reasonable chance of winning the election. That however, is a far different statement.

    As for "influencing the parties from within" historical evidence has shown that the largest party shifts happen when either a third party grows to a point that it absorbs an older traditional party (think Federalists, Whigs, etc), one of the two party co-opts disaffected members of the other major party (democrat segregationists moving to the republican party), or when a third party becomes large enough that a major party shifts it's position to incorporate it (People's Party, Know Nothings, etc).

    Historically, a major party is far more likely to change it's positions based on outside influences.

    You see it this election cycle. The Ron Paul movement is making serious attempts to change the party structure internally, but it has been almost entirely short-circuited by the insiders and leaders of the party. Without that group leaving and putting outside pressure on the party it will be little more than a footnote like Howard Dean and the recent anti-war movement.

  • Calidissident||

    Tony, one vote is never going to shift an election. And voting for someone you hate just because you think he's a little better than the other guy does not influence him in the right direction. He only supports and upholds the two party system, and encourages them to continue making shitty decisions you disagree with, cause you're going to vote for them regardless.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John is 100% correct on the premise that there are only two choices in each presidential election. It's just the way the system is set up, and I don't know about John but I'm not fond of that system--I'm just aware with 100% certainty that the result of it will be either a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office.

    Even so, if you live in a state that is solidly going either way the best play for a libertarian - republican is to vote for Johnson. Johnson getting millions of votes more than R senatorial and congressional candidates will make some politicians realize that it is a sizable voting block to be courted.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John badly wants the R/R ticket to be able to fix things. Pointing out the problems with that notion has lead him to throw a temper tantrum.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    RR can fix things if they get elected. In fact, I'd say that it's more likely that they will roll back some government than that they won't.

    The difference between 2012 2000 is that if a republican wins this year he will have solid majorities in both houses of congress, something that Bush never had, including a number of people that are either true believers in limiting government or explicitly campaigned as such. And the R-R is running as fiscal conservatives and promising to overturn Obamacare.

    That is in sharp contrast to Bush's campaign rhetoric, as a compassionate conservative in 00 and the republican house exhausted itself during the Clinton impeachment and the conservative / small government firebrands had largely left and been replaced by the likes of Tom DeLay and Dennie Hastert.

  • Hyperion||

    Something happened to him. When I read that thread, I thought maybe he had decided to take the day off and just get drunker than shit early on in the day, lol

    John is a Libertarian, JC, he is just still stuck in that you have to vote for the GOP to save us from the Dems thing. I can relate to it because I was the same way up until recently when I finally woke up and realized what is going on.

  • Hyperion||

    Or to put it another way, a couple of years ago, I didn't post much here, but I had people to tell me that I was a small L libertarian, and that the GOP establishment had me right where they wanted me because I voted a straight R ticket. Well, those peeps were right. One thing I can say, is that people usually do not become less Libertarian once they start to lean in that direction, but more Libertarian. I have never seen the reverse situation that I can think of.

  • Hyperion||

    I've already had this discussion with John. I know he hates Obama, and so do I, but where we differ is that I am voting for GJ. I assume that John is staying home with his protest vote, or voting for Romney. Either way, I don't agree, but it's his choice.

  • Old Mexican||

    Climate Change – Wrote an op/ed back in 2009 decrying Climategate as "perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion."

    He's an obvious anti-science denier who can't admit that the made-up data and quotes lifted from popular hiking magazines clearly prove that the science is settled.

    Voted NO on the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade scheme back in 2009.

    I would've voted "NO" on anything that resulted from the Invasion Of The Mole People.

  • T o n y||

    Of all factions on planet earth none will retain the infamy of the current US Republican party for its cynical anti-science agenda. You are a grown man capable of reading, so you can go figure out where current science is on this issue, just like any other issue. But on this issue, specifically, you defer to fringe rightwing sources and reflexive oil shills--when oil companies themselves are no longer denying the science. Why do you disagree with Exxon and BP that global warming is real?

  • Enough About Palin||

    Of all factions on planet earth none will retain the infamy of the current US Republican party team AGW for its cynical anti-science agenda.

    FIFY

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You are a grown man capable of reading, so you can go figure out where current science is on this issue, just like any other issue.

    So true, a statement that could lead me to conclude you're no grown man.

    you defer to fringe rightwing sources and reflexive oil shills

    I understand - whatever it is that does not confirm your view, must be right wing and (worse) "reflexive" oil shills. Never mind the sequential string of truly dumb mistakes by the AGW crowd, starting with IPCC reports filled with spurious proofs lifted from popular magazines, no verification. Or the bad statistical model that always lead to the Hockey Stick result. And so on ad nauseam.

    No, I must be a loon because I choose not to jump into the pit with you. Have a nice trip, by the way.

  • T o n y||

    And you reply with bullshit rightwing conspiracy theory tidbits.

    Wherever you go to keep up on current science, which of course you do because you're an intellectually curious person, go there and see what those sources say about climate change. Then ask yourself why among all the fields of study, that one they have wrong and talk radio has right.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    And you reply with bullshit rightwing conspiracy theory tidbits.

    You're such a loon, Tony. I didn't reply with consiratorial anything - those things are factual, on the record, for all to see and feel embarrased about.

    go there and see what those sources say about climate change.

    I've been visiting all sorts of blogs since the 90s, Tony. I've debated with all sorts of crazy people, from young-earth creationists to economics-illiterate socialists. I've read all sorts of claims about AGW and ended up feeling disgust at the way that crowd jumped the gun on preliminary data, rubbing hands at the mere thought of imposing economically crippling "solutions" over unsuspecting fools. That wasn't science anymore than eugenics could be. I felt betrayed by people who assured me the data was there. It wasn't.

    By the way, remember when the warmists were saying that "weather is not climate"? Guess what they're saying now? Is that science, Tony? Don't be such a naive fool.

  • T o n y||

    What the fuck do "blogs" have to do with reliable sources on science? Pick up a textbook for christ's sake (best avoid ones printed in Texas). Or read Wikipedia. Go, read, and see just how much of the world is in on the conspiracy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What the fuck do "blogs" have to do with reliable sources on science?

    You don't seem to understand. What I am telling you is that I know where to get my information. Debating with people about science requires knowing something about science (how it works, how knowledge is adquired) in order to be successful in a discussion.

    I have been reading about AGW since the 90s. I used to believe it was happening, albeit was skeptical of the prescriptions. Then things turned for the worse when extraordinary claims were being made about sea levels and polar bears and ski resorts not having snow for the rich folk, you name it - at that moment, I smelled a hoax. So far, I have not been disappointed and it has gotten to be even worse. Like I asked you, guess what the warmists are saying now about "weather = climate"?

    Pick up a textbook for christ's sake

    If you want to ensure a lack of knowledge, then pick up an American textbook.

  • T o n y||

    You can't get away from the fact that your hoax claim is a claim, just like the conclusions and predictions of climate change science. Your hoax claim is so monumentally absurd that it requires extraordinary evidence, and you have nothing.

    Nobody said you had to pick up an American textbook. Do an honest assessment of the state of scientific opinion on this issue globally and, again, you would find yourself with a pile of conspiracy theory bullcrap and little else by comparison.

  • Carston||

    Damn, I'm feeding the troll again.

    Just search for:
    wikileaks climategate

    And you will find why some people will never believe in AGW. I am one of them.

  • T o n y||

    Not even if near-irrefutable evidence is uncovered that shows that humans pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere does, in fact, trap heat? Sounds like you're not approaching the issue with a skeptical eye. A trumped-up rightwing non-scandal does not contradict science.

  • Carston||

    When you have "scientists" juking stats and putting thermometers next to AC exhaust fans, yeah, I'm gonna be skeptical.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And then in the end the warming is turning out to be harmless. Sad for Chonytard.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah.. what's funny about your comment is that they'll laugh at the global warming panic in the future, the way we laugh at goofy stuff in old magazines. Oh, those silly millennials!

  • T o n y||

    Or they'll be suffering from severe disruptions in their climate and all the consequent problems. But it's best to be skeptical and cautious and trust Rush Limbaugh over modern science on this one.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your fantasies =/= reality

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I'm laughing at you now. Might as well get an early start.

  • Zeb||

    So, he's a normal socon republican with a bit more fiscal realism/restraint than most. Not impressed.

  • Randian||

    John tells me this means you must vote for Obama...or something.

  • sticks||

    Reading those comments was like a less funny version of South Park's Douche and Turd episode.

  • ||

    John sure has a lot of energy and enthusiasm for convincing everyone to vote for TEAM RED. It's almost like he's emotionally invested or something. Shocker, I know.

  • Randian||

    Jeez, Epi, he was laughing all the way through it. COULDN'T YOU TELL???!

  • Hyperion||

    I couldn't. I think he was seriously upset. If it was all sarcasm, it was pretty well played.

  • Hyperion||

    Ok, I promise this is the last time that I will try to defend John a little here. But the way I see it is that he doesn't like Romney so much, he just really hates Obama. I can understand that, but I just disagree with him like most here that it justifies voting for Romney. It doesn't.

  • BigT||

    I feel much the same way. But I believe that Romney has an open mind - I clearly remember him saying that he agrees with Ron Paul during the debates - whereas Obama et al do not have open minds. With Romney it is possible things could get better. Not so with Obama.

  • ||

    His mind is too open. He has no redeeming principles. Does that mean he'd be better or worse than Obama? Who knows.

    Does he deserve to be president?

    Fuck no.

    So he won't get my vote. Pretty simple.

  • ||

    Biological Evolution – No known views with regard to how to "teach the controvery" in public school biology classes, but happy to report that he favors school choice.

    He is a catholic isn't he?

    My guess is he takes the catholic loop hole which says that evolution does not conflict with the bible because on the first day there was no sun so we have no idea how long it was...or some weird shit like that.

    But yeah I know evolution to be true but I favor school choice so whatever.

  • GILMORE||

    joshua corning| 8.13.12 @ 5:10PM |#

    Biological Evolution – No known views
    ....
    He is a catholic isn't he?

    My guess is he takes the catholic loop hole

    As a catholic, I think you should understand the true meaning of "catholic loop hole"

    Meaning A: "...since I'm catholic, I really don't give a shit about religion since this particular religion is so ridiculous, but fuck it, I still have to show up at midnight mass and easter dinners every couple years, so might as well play along...

    Meaning B: Involves a trick when you can't use condom

  • ||

    I was an alter boy. I know Catholicism.

    Catholicism has many loopholes. The one I was speaking of was the creation/evolutionary Catholic loophole.

    Plus I wrote the best catholic joke ever on hit and run a few years ago...

    I think i am due more catholic street cred then you are giving me.

  • GILMORE||

    joshua corning| 8.13.12 @ 5:35PM |#

    I was an alter boy. I know Catholicism

    So the therapy is working, and the nightmares have stopped?

    And is an 'alter-boy' different from the Altar Boy? Did you have to dress up in a ballerina costume before you were molested?

    I've never heard the expression 'catholic street cred' outside of Derry or Ulster. Does it involve proficiency with explosives?

    Catholicism for me growing up was not a religion, per se, but rather something that distinguished Irish and Italians and Polish in brooklyn from others. And the only differences seemed to be languages, and how hardcore old-school they got. Unless it was in Latin, with lots o' incense, and the Organ of Death vibrating your bowels, I was not impress. A sober priest is no good at all.

    'I'm gonna get Medieval on that mass!'

  • GILMORE||

    JOHN:

    YEAH WELL I GUESS HE'S NOT PERFECT AND YOU SNOTTY LIBERDOUCHES WILL END UP JUST VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN ANYONE WHO FAILS TO MEET YOUR PURITY TESTS IS REJECTED WHICH IS WHY ALL YOU DO IS PERPETUATE THE STATUS QUO AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT IF YOU HAD ANY BRAINS AT ALL YOUD SEE THAT THE GOP IS BETTER THAN OBAMA ON EVERYTHING SO YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THESE MINOR FAILINGS IN ORDER TO CHANGE THINGS I STILL LOVE YOU RYAN!!

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm confused. Are you GILMORE or John? I know your official handle is GILMORE but you sound just like John. Stop confusing me!

  • Old Mexican||

    Reproductive Issues – Straight down-the-line pro-life - 100 Percent rating by National Right to Life Committee.

    Disclaimer: For the self-professed "Right to Life" crowd, being "Pro- life" does not mean accepting the concept of right to life of bearded towelheads that speak ill of America... Or their wives and children.

  • Carston||

    Correct, you take innocent lives, or organize/assist someone it taking innocent lives, you then lose your right to life.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Carston,

    Correct, you take innocent lives,

    So far so good...

    [...] or organize/assist someone it taking innocent lives

    Don't tell me: The government gets to tell who "organizes" and "assists" in taking of innocent lives. Right?

    By the way, isn't the same true for those that operate drones that bomb wedding parties? Wouldn't they be "organizing" and "assising" in the taking of innocent life?

    I am a true Pro-life person. For me, murder is murder, no matter who commits it ow how much a person rationalizes it.

  • T o n y||

    So what's murder?

    By chance is your entire political-philosophical worldview based on a series of tautologies?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Killing terrorists =/= murder

  • Calidissident||

    A wedding party = terrorists?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The abortion issue has nothing to do with "science, technology, and energy."

    One side thinks it's murder because they believe a fetus is a living human being; the other side does not think it's a living human being, or doesn't care.

  • ||

    It is a little less binary than that.

    For many (lbertarians at least) it is not just an argument about "living humans", but an argument about when a person is endowed with the full rights of personhood and when those rights trump the rights of the other individual directly involved.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    an argument about when a person is endowed with the full rights of personhood

    Right.

    when those rights trump the rights of the other individual directly involved

    No. NAP applies, if it's a person. Competing rights don't really come into it.

  • Ron Bailey||

    FB: Determining whether or not various techs harm embryos, fertilized eggs, and so forth is implicated in the pro-life position, e.g., do morning after pills cause abortions? The scientific answer appears to be NO, but lots of pro-life claim otherwise.

  • ShagNasty||

    Ron: When you say he voted yes on prohibiting needle exchanges in DC, does that mean a private entity could not establish a needle exchange in DC. I can understand the liberterian argument against state-run needle exchange programs, but just outright banning needle exchanges seems like pure evil.

  • ShagNasty||

    Is anyone else here bothered by his vote on needle exchanges? That demonstrates to me that Paul Ryan would rather inconvenience drug users than help to reduce the spread of deadly and incurable diseases. If he has kids I hope one of them contracts hepatitis C by sharing a heroin needle with a diseased hooker. (Joking btw, so no one ask me why I hate children.)

  • Christina||

    Follow the logic. Drugs hurt people, sometimes killing them, so they were made illegal. Needle exchanges mitigate some of that risk of hurting yourself. This encourages drug use, since you are less likely to die. Therefore needle exchanges are wrong. Get it? The state doesn't want you to do drugs because you might die, but if you are going to use them, you should die to serve as a lesson to others.

  • Russell||

    I have a bad feeling about this:

    Climate Change – D for Disinformation, parrots the K-Street climategate yawp, but pleads innumeracy when cornered.

    Reproductive Issues – Panders to the Base with a magisterial preference for bigotry over liberty

    Human Biotech – He's agin it and for the Human Cloning Prohibition Act

    General Energy- voted $150 million in subsidies to a failing uranium enrichment plant in Ohio.

    Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository – Business as usual

    Drug Legalization just another authoritarian

    Space Exploration – would rather subsidize subi=orbital tourism than solar system exploration

    Biological Evolution Ron may be happy to report that he favors school choice, but then so does the Discovery Institute.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Biological Evolution – No known views with regard to how to "teach the controvery" in public school biology classes, but happy to report that he favors school choice."

    Why link to any of the creationist debate? Ryan hasn't said anything one way or another--so why link to other people talking about something you have no opinion from Ryan on? And why no link to his support of school choice? Although that, like abortion is not really a 'sciTech' issue.

    Sometimes it's easy to see what set John off. There are so many liberals here, hiding under the mantle of a left/libertarian alliance--cosmotarians, liberaltarians. It's always sad to watch reason tack leftward around elections as these folks 'subtly' try to steer things in their favor.

    And be sure I understand that--at least among the posters--we see the reverse, conservatives and republicans trying to steer their way. They're a lot harder to distinguish from actual libertarians, but they're there. But they're just commenting.

    Those who write reason fall into the libertarian/liberaltarian/liberal spectrum, which is sad. Liberals accept nothing of libertarians--even their 'legalise drugs' ideas come from a far different place than any libertarian would go. The GOP is fighting a losing battle against libertarian takeover.

  • Azathoth!!||

    con't

    And they will lose. Libertarian thought is far too intermingled with 'conservative' thought. As the old guard dies, those that take their place will take those strains of libertarian thought for granted, the party will change.

    What will reason do then? I suspect they will, by that time, be just one more lefty screed site, ceaselessly moving the goalposts leftward under the guise of keeping in line with a 'liberty' that they have long since abandoned.

    I'm voting Johnson, just so you know. I loathe Romney. I would have voted R if Newk had made it--there's chaos in that man, a chaos that I think might be good for us. Plus, retiring to the Moon sounds nice.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement