Ryan and Akin TLA

The two boys partying after their no-abortion even in rape victory

Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Rep. Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin (R-MO) and GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan both cosponsored the bill that introduced America to the despicable term “forcible rape.” As it turns out, this may only be the second most sweeping attack on reproductive freedom that both men partnered on. Ryan and Akin also cosponsored a federal personhood bill, the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009, which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the exact same legal rights as a human being:

(1) the Congress declares that–

(A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Lest there be any doubt, this bill is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to overrule Roe v. Wade by an ordinary statue, only a constitutional amendment could serve that purpose. Moreover, even if Roe were overruled by the Supreme Court, Ryan and Akin’s bill still attempts to redefine who “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution” applies to. Again, changing the meaning of the Constitution can only be done through an amendment, not through an ordinary Act of Congress.

Should Ryan and Akin’s personhood agenda take effect, however, it would drastically reduce women’s reproductive choice. The bill declares that a human egg obtains “all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood” the moment it merges with a human sperm. Thus, a Blastocyst-American would not only enjoy the same constitutional status as a fully grown adult, it would also enjoy any “legal” attributes enjoyed by adults. Because every states’ law makes it a crime to kill a human adult, the likely effect of Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill would be to treat killing a fertilized egg as the same thing as homicide.

Such an interpretation would not simply ban abortion, it could turn many forms of birth control into the legal equivalent of a murder weapon. Many forms of contraception, including many birth control pills, function in part by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus. Thus, Ryan and Akin’s personhood bill could render the act of using many forms of oral contraception the equivalent of a homicide crime.

Original Post: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/20/712501/paul-ryan-and-todd-akin-partnered-on-radical-personhood-bill-outlawing-abortion-and-many-birth-control-pills/

From friend of blog Jerry: A look at health care from front lines (an original post)

There seems to be be concerted effort to break apart Medicare into two groups. One group is the one who is drawing upon Medicare currently, and who the Privatizers would like to say "don't worry nothing will change with regards to your plan"; and the younger one who will get a voucher which, in current climate of rising health care cost, will appear to be almost valueless. In some ways this can be seen as a way to break the younger and healthier of the heard; off from older and sicker. After these changes have gone through (on a purely selfish level) there will be reason for their kids to support their more sickly parents after they have just bee sold out by them. In this way the Privatizers will have just destroyed the institution Medicare in two easy steps to the detriment of everyone except the insurance companies. 

It is a similar plan to the one that was tried in 2004-2005 George W. Bush spearheaded a drive to wipe out Social Security. That one was dreamed up in a Republican think tank, as I remember reading about the plan before it was ever rolled out. The one thing that the Privatizers hadn't counted on was that these elders seemed to like Social Security and they just didn't want to sell out their children when it came to this benefit. From here I asked a person who is drawing from Medicare now what his thoughts on the institution were. Here's what he wrote:

Medicare, The view from here.

I was asked recently what I thought about changes that might be coming for Medicare. My first thoughts are that with all the talk about it going broke, there may be a need to change some parts of the program. I say may, because the changes may not need to be made to the program, just a new way of funding it. There’s an easy repair, but it involves drastically hiking taxes, so voters aren't hearing about it on the campaign trail. Under federal law, millionaires and billionaires get to dodge payroll taxes on a substantial percentage of their salaries. Employers and workers are charged payroll taxes on salaries up to $110,100 a year, meaning anything above that —a category that includes some of the middle class — is payroll-tax free. Simply lifting that cap would cover about 90 percent of the projected shortfall over 75 years, according to forecasts by the Social Security Administration ( I would recommend the same payroll tax rate applying to capital gains as well, otherwise the Mitts (Romney) of the country get off free)

At 78 years of age I am much more concerned as to how Medicare will be handled for my children, now averaging 49 years of age. I can see some perceived unfairness with the suggestion that radical change may come only to those under fifty-five years of age i.e., some type of voucher program, which until fully described, cannot be fully imagined. I assume it will come as a check which we are told we will buy insurance from various insurance companies. The companies will have a range of policies with various deductibles. I’m afraid I am at a loss to know how an effective voucher can work and I can see how this program could favor the insurance companies unless the vouchers were drawn with very tight specifications as to what range and cost of service they would pay for. (Think how many jobs this would create for the thousands of lobbyist the insurance companies would hire to design this voucher.)

What I can say about the current program is that it has seen me through, a hip replacement, a pulmonary embolism, prostate cancer, and bladder cancer. OMG, have I lived through all that. That said, all of the foregoing was covered as well by private insurance costing in excess of $450 per month. Imagine what Medicare would cost if a great many didn’t have supplemental insurance.

One thing I have become very much aware of is the vast amount of fraud now existing in the current program. Not millions but billions of dollars are being stolen from the taxpayers. A group was discovered in North Carolina in a twenty million dollar scam involving medical equipment. On 60 minutes an interviewer asked a jailed participant in the scam if they were jacking the price of the wheelchairs up and charging Medicare exorbitant prices for them. He answered promptly that no; there weren’t any wheelchairs involved, they were just billing for fictitious people or participants that were paid a small amount to allow their Medicare numbers to be used in the billing process. Asked if any of his friends could start this scam up again, he replied that it would not be a problem. Fraud prevention should be enhanced tremendously .

I think the Affordable Care Act should continued to be activated with the mandate included and then modified over a period of years as we see how it works. So much political activity has taken place already; surely we need to go awhile with what we have already voted on. It appears to be the Democrats, who I favor after forty years of voting for the Republicans, should be explaining how the Affordable Care Act incorporates Medicare and broadens it scope and longevity. This, to me, is not being adequately being explained. Perhaps we could put a White Board like Mitt and use fewer words like: Obamacare, Passed and Solvent …MittPaulCare, Who the Hell Knows? 

From RT: Ayn Rand for Vice President

The state of the GOP: Team Romney-Ryan 2012

Mitt Romney is a terrible politician. He has been given to the country by Wall Street and high finance: you know the people who actually make decisions for the country from the shadows. In nearly every southern primary Romney was  rejected by the south (the beating heart of the modern GOP), at least every primary where his challenger was able to figure out how to get on the ballot. The people bankrolling his campaign didn't really seem to care whether the south wanted him or not. They got Mitt Romney just the same. It really was decided for them before they ever went to the polls.

All's Romney had to do in the general election was show up say "I'm here to replace Obama", give no opinion on anything, spout platitudes, and wait for chief justice Roberts to hand him the keys to the white house. He has been such a bad politician putting his foot in his mouth on nearly every stop along the way, while looking like he's totally repulsed even having to stand beside ordinary Americans, and looking like he possess no principle that he isn't willing to change ten minutes later. This includes even making his latest choice of Paul Ryan for vice-president, to appease the right; only to reject Paul Ryan's plan fifteen minutes later, while trying to etch a sketch his way to the middle. Romney has proven to be the  equivalent of a political Gumby talking whatever position you want, whenever you want him to take it.



On nearly every issue you can guarantee that at one point or another Mitt Romney has been both for and against it. He's proven to be an abortion loving...cheesy grits eating...professional candidate who hates politics though who has really done nothing for the last twenty years of his life but run for elected office... and whose major core principle  is that he believes the trees in Michigan are just the right height.

Romney entered the race with all kinds of advantages. All's he had to do was shut and say he was reasonably sure he wasn't a Kenyan . Instead he allowed the conversation to turn into one about Mitt's missing tax returns which he's proven willing to go to the mat for to keep the public from knowing what's there in a manner that he won't defend any core principle (but trust him there is nothing embarrassing there after all he's looked for you)... or what has happened to the workers in  factories that the company that paid for his lavish lifestyle took over and (though he believes in no free hand-outs for the poor) which keep sending him large checks for doing nothing though he can't r even figure out why they are doing it ...and healthcare in Massachusetts that he passed which would have allowed all those laid-off workers to have some protection if they lived in his state (though if he's president he'll dismantle within the first day in office).

Now that he's managed to get almost no one excited behind him, this human chameleon has added the boy wizard, Paul Ryan, to his team. A congressman who shares a bed with a lobbyist both figuratively, literally, and in every way possible. The question that American need to think of is whether this former lobbyist and her husband, who appears as comfortable being lobbied as his wife is lobbying him,will be willing to have a different opinion than that of their client list. If the voters who support him have a different opinion from the companies he and his wife have worked for in the past, who will they stand up for? In the past decade alone Ryan's on wealth has increased by 75%.  http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/ryans-fortune-has-increased-in-past-decade-nb6f6ql-165879436.html) These well connected individual have allowed Ryan and his family to move into the old Parker Pen mansion: who have since taken their operations over to China  (http://www.scottwalker.org/news/2009/08/janesvilles-former-parker-pen-plant-may-close-153-jobs-would-be-lost) leaving their former Diggs to their loyal government lackeys, like the junior partners in the government businesses nexus that is literally destroying this country. Having nice houses like this allows politicians like Ryan to pretend he they really are just as powerful as the patrons who he so slavishly serves.

Ryan's Parker home: under new managment

When it comes to changing the tax code who will Paul Ryan and his wife listen to the American people - complete with their tricorner hats and pitch forks who have nothing but most the easily replaceable thing to offer: their votes; or will they listen to their former clients - the Pharmaceutical industry, the Oil industry (Conoco and Marathon Oil) or the big health insurance companies (Blue Cross Blue Shield and Cigna) The American public might want to change the tax code, a flat tax comes to mind, but the tax code has been working out pretty well for his client list and, indirectly, it's been working out pretty nicely for the Ryans too.

Who will they listen to the Tea Party signs

Or friends with benefits

Then this career politician (14 years or one third of his life as a "public servant" special emphasis on servant)  runs against Washington, the very institution that he's suckled at for over a decade and which bought him all these nice things. Washington is suddenly the problem, from looking at his house it looks more like his personal solution to me, as his whole career has  been nothing but acting as a personal conduit for business getting policies they want out of Washington. It's a perfect cynical policy put forth by a man who voted for the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, an unpaid prescription benefit that is killing Medicare (causing him to have to destroy Medicare  to save it),  the bank bail out (but now wants de-regulate the banks allowing them to take even greater risks), and is listed by many in the media as a serious thinker with regard to economic issues (though his plan does nothing to cut the deficit but raises it)...Ryan is portrayed as some great thinker with serious ideas rather than as a guy who escaped from a lunatic asylum who babbles and imagines himself as a great thinker.

Another great thinker with serious ideas promoted by the media

Good luck tea party: in taking taking your country back. Your corrupted champions are here to help you. Just don't read too much, think too much, and really let's get to the biggest question that America wants an answer to has Obama ever really produced that birth certificate? I mean the long form

Stephanie Miller: Paul Ryan's plan isn't a bold plan. It is a horrible plan.

Under Paul Ryan’s Plan, Mitt Romney Would Pay Virtually No Taxes | TPM2012

Under Paul Ryan’s Plan, Mitt Romney Would Pay Virtually No Taxes | TPM2012:

'via Blog this'

Democrats have speculated that Mitt Romney might have paid little to no taxesin the years covered in his unreleased tax returns. If Paul Ryan had his way, they’d be right.

Romney’s new running mate proposed eliminating the capital gains tax in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Since Romney, like many ultra-wealthy Americans, derives virtually all of his income from investments, he would pay virtually no taxes at all under such a plan.

The Atlantic crunched the numbers on Romney’s 2010 tax returns, the only one he’s made public, and found that Romney’s tax rate that year would be just 0.82 percent under Ryan’s proposal.

Romney went out of his way during the campaign to avoid proposing any capital gains tax cuts that would benefit him personally, keenly aware that his investment fortune made him an easy target for Democrats. He did propose tax cuts on investment income, but said they would be restricted only to middle-class savings, leaving his own vast holdings unaffected.

The capital gains issue came up during the primaries when Romney attacked Newt Gingrich’s tax plan by noting it would reduce his own tax burden to 0 percent:

“Under that plan, I’d have paid no taxes in the last two years,” Romney said in a January debate, referring to its elimination of taxes on investment.

Ryan also may have recognized the political difficulties behind his idea. While his 2010 proposal put him on the political map, he chose not to zero out capital gains in his House budget.

Given Democratic enthusiasm for Romney’s personal finances and President Obama’s focus on tax fairness, Ryan’s earlier capital gains pitch is likely to rear its head on the trail.

Full story here: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/under-paul-ryans-plan-mitt-romney-would-pay-virtually-no-taxes.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Michael Martin's The GOP's Munster ticket

• 

The Republicans continue to build their bridge to the 19th century

From the modern gilded age and back to quaint gilded age when people had the personal responsibility to just starve on their own.

The Lobbyists were hard at work crafting their bills. Here is one who misplaced his little Paul Ryan worker bee

Some believe that Newt Gingrich's grandfather was at working showing these kids the importance of work ethics

The job creators were hard at work

No lazy freeloaders here. The good news at work is they can get a job in Maine which is busy repealing those laws that their do-gooders put in place.

Just look at all thejobs that were created here. Architect and the person who puts all the gold leaf on the walls. You couldn't expect them to have just a regular dining room

The Republican Right Gets What it Wanted: A Ryan-Romney Ticket | The Nation

The Republican Right Gets What it Wanted: A Ryan-Romney Ticket | The Nation:

'via Blog this'

LP: The right wing in ascendancy as it leaves the 21st century. The next stop the 19th century.

It takes a special talent to blow the introduction of your running-mate. But Mitt Romney's got what it takes.

So it was that the presumptive Republican nominee for president told thousands of cheering supporters that Paul Ryan is "the next president of the United States."

For now, Ryan is merely slated to be the Republican nominee for vice president.

But Romney's gaffe was telling.

With the selection of the House Budget Committee chairman as his ticket-mate, Romney has bowed -- not a tip of the head here, a full bow -- to the party's conservative establishment and to grassroots right-wingers who demand not electability but absolute purity.

That’s a more significant shift than it might seem. The Romney campaign plan was supposed to follow classic GOP lines: run to the right in the primaries and then, with the nomination secured, pivot at least a little bit toward the center. Even as he battled Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the winter and spring, Romney tried to maintain a measure of ideological maneuverability

No more.

Romney has deferred, fully, to the right.

Until just a few days ago, Ryan was considered an unlikely prospect for the No. 2 spot on the Republican ticket: too rigid in his budgetary obsessions, too wacky in his enthusiasm for Ayn Rand’s novels and Austrian economics, too enthusiastic about taking apart Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Romney likes Ryan personally -- enjoying the frat-boy comaraderie that they displayed while campaigning together before Wisconsin's April primary -- but there was never any doubt that he and his team had their doubts about whether they wanted to let the more dynamic and ideologically-pure Ryan define not just the ticket but a potential Romney-Ryan presidency.

It was the right that wanted Ryan on the ticket.

And the right got what it wanted.

In the end, Romney had to bow in order to secure a base that despises President Obama but that never had much taste for the formerly centrist former governor of the only state that backed George McGovern for president in 1972. There was a lingering fear that, as with the Bushes, Romney might go "off message" on them.

Those fears surfaced -- "big time," as Dick Cheney would put it -- as the Romney was finished the vice-presidential selection process.

The first days of August found conservatives entertaining serious doubts about whether Mitt Romney is really one of them. First, one of Romney’s top aides, Andrea Saul, got caught talking up Romneycare (the Massachusetts version of Obamacare) as a cure for what ails the uninsured. Right-wing columnist Ann Coulter responded by calling Saul a “moron,” demanding that Romney fire the spokeswoman.

“Anyone who donates to Mitt Romney, and I mean the big donors, ought to say if Andrea Saul isn’t fired and off the campaign tomorrow, they are not giving another dime, because it is not worth fighting for this man if this is the kind of spokesman he has,” Coulter told Sean Hannity on Fox News Wednesday night. “There’s no point in you doing your show, there’s no point in going to the convention and pushing for this man if he’s employing morons like this.”

Ouch.

But the bigger “ouch” moment came the same day, when it was revealed that the Romney camp had tapped World Bank president Robert Zoellick to head the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s foreign-policy transition team. Right-wing Republicans dislike Zoellick—a lot—because he is considered a foreign-policy “realist,” with internationalist tendencies. American Enterprise Institute vice president Danielle Pletka described Zoellick as an establishment guy, he’s a trade-first guy. He’s basically a George H.W. Bush old-school Republican.”

On the Republican right, that’s about the same as calling Zoellick an Obama man. Conservative commentators are in full gripe.

What was Mitt to do?

How could he put an end to the debate about whether an until-recently-pro-choice "Massachusetts moderate" could really be trusted by the true believers of the contemporary conservative movement?

The pressure on Romney to pick the right-wing favorite for vice president increased as concerns about Romney’s right-wing bona fides rose.

Ryan was endorsed by the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard. Even Newt Gingrich, who once ridiculed Ryan’s economic policies as “right-wing social engineering ,” said Ryan might just be the guy.

Through it all, Ryan gave no ground, sent no moderating signals. The 42-year-old Budget Committee chairman remained the steadily controversial figure he has been over the past several years -- thanks, largely (but not entirely), to his advocacy of policies that would lead to the dismantling of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Inside the Romney camp, by all accounts, this fact was duly noted.

But if Romney wanted to get the base in place, he could not opt for a narcoleptic prospect such as former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty or Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

As the presidential candidate admitted, he needed a running mate who would add “something to the political discourse about the direction of the country.”

Translation: Romney needed to confirm his conservative credibility.

Ryan met the ideological litmus tests of the Republican purists. Yes, he is a politician. Yes, he is "DC." But he is also, at least at this point, the Grand Old Party's philosopher prince. And his philosophy is not just in synch with the thinking of the Republican right. Ryan embraces and at times defines that thinking.

As ardent social conservative, arguably to the right of Romney on issues such as gay rights and a woman’s right to choose, he was acceptable in ways that other dynamic prospects, such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, were not. A stalwart on the side of the military-industrial complex who never met a war or a military budget that he didn’t like, and who -- despite that nice-guy image -- has always been willing to mouth extreme talking points about “foreign” threats, he was for the neo-con establishment far more acceptable than "worldly" contenders such as former Ambassador Jon Huntsman or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And of course, Ryan was, and is,ever at the ready to promote the fiscal fantasies favored by the hedge fund managers, big bankers and insurance industry interests that fund the vast right-wing infrastructure.

So Ryan passes muster. In the face of the challenges facing Romney at this late stage in a campaign that has had a very bad summer, that was been enough to make him Romney’s pick. As Romney and his team worried about keeping its right flank satisfied, Ryan’s stock rose—rapidly. On Saturday, it will moved him to the No. 2 spot on the 2012 Republican ticket.

Ryan seized the moment, adding star power and rhetorical muscle to the announcement on the USS Wisconsin Saturday morning.

Romney bumbled the introduction.

But Ryan nailed it, earning the loudest applause of the day with a Reagan-esque declaration that: "America is more than just a place...it's an idea.  It's the only country founded on an idea. 'Our rights come from nature and God, not government.'  We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

That's a line straight from the gospels of the Republican right. Romney has tried to deliver it throughout the campaign. Ryan succeeded. And the crowd went wild.

Indeed, they responded as if Ryan really was "the next president of the United States."

The problem, of course, is that while Ryan speaks the language of the right, and while the Republican ticket is now fully and firmly committed to that run on not on Romney's talking points but on Ryan's, the Romney-Ryan ticket is going to need a lot more than the purists to win an election that just became a referendum on Ryanism.

Romney will top the ticket. But Ryan is more than a running-mate. He is the defining figure for the Republicans from here on out -- a development that deligted Democrats who could not quite decide whether the word "radical" or "extreme" better described the ticket. That defining will go way beyond issues of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. On every issue that you can imagine, from reproductive rights to environmental protection to labor rights, Ryan is stands to the right. Way to the right.

The Ryan selection moves the Grand Old Party harder to the right than at any time since 1964, when the true believers got a nominee, a platform and 39 percent of the vote. America's more divided now. The Romney-Ryan ticket will run better than Goldwater and Bill Miller did 48 years ago, But by bending so far toward the base, Romney has given the Democrats an opportunity to dream not just of winning but of winning bigger than anyone dared imagine 48 weeks or even 48 days ago.

That's because they are no longer running against Romney and a ticketmate. They are running against a pairing that, defintionally if not officially, would better be described as the Ryan-Romney ticket.

Story originally Published here:  http://www.thenation.com/blog/169353/paul-ryan-covers-romneys-right-flank#

Paul Ryan Labor Day Parade

This was the greeting Paul Ryan got last labor day at home. The great thing about Paul Ryan being VP is he can now hire a phalanx of secret service to keep him away from the people he supposedly represents.

It's official Romney chooses Ryan for VP 2012

Romney Plays the VP Vetting Game

Paul Ryan: Ayn who?

What is this little Twit talking about and what has he ever done?

Paul Ryan's end point is Ayn Rand Utopia & he knows it

GI Paul mispoke. How dare he suggest he knows less than the generals

‘I Really Misspoke’: Ryan Apologizes For Comment On Military Generals’ Integrity | TPMDC

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan admitted Sunday he “misspoke” when questioning the honesty of top military generals on defense spending needs, and said he has apologized to the Pentagon’s top adviser to the president.

“I really misspoke,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union. “And I did not mean to impugn the integrity of the military in any way.” Asked whether he has apologized to Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ryan said, “Yeah, I called him and told him that.”

“It was not the impression I meant to give,” Ryan added on ABC’s This Week. “I talked to General Dempsey on it, and expressed that sentiment.”

Calling his words “clumsy,” Ryan doubled down on his broader point that the Pentagon is conforming to adjusted military spending levels in President Obama’s budget, when he argues they should have put out their budget first.

The Maddow Blog - Paul Ryan's unbridled chutzpah on defense spending

The Maddow Blog - Paul Ryan's unbridled chutzpah on defense spending

"We don't think the generals are giving us their true advice," Ryan said during a forum on the budget sponsored by the National Journal. "We don't think the generals believe their budget is really the right budget." [...]

He went on to say that while there were certainly inefficiencies that could be reduced in the Pentagon's budget, fighting wars in the Middle East and a "dangerous world" necessitated keeping defense spending level.

...First, Ryan is ostensibly someone who's eager to slash every possible public investment. Indeed, he believes spending has to be brutally cut to the bone to prevent some kind of looming "debt crisis," And yet, given the chance to cut nearly a half-trillion in spending over the next decade, the right-wing Wisconsinite has suddenly discovered he disapproves of budget cuts after all. (Ryan wants to increase defense spending, even while cutting everything else.) If the cuts don't hurt working families, he's apparently not interested.

Second, let's not forget that the Pentagon wants these budget cuts. It's not as if there's a dispute between the White House and the brass, and Ryan is siding with the latter. Instead, Ryan is looking for budget cuts; the Pentagon is recommending some; and the Budget Committee chairman prefers to ignore the recommendations.

Third, notice that Ryan is effectively accusing U.S. military leaders of lying to Congress about the resources necessary to keep the nation safe. I wonder what the reaction would be if a House Democrat did that.

And finally, there's the biggest, most jaw-dropping angle of them all: Paul Ryan, who has never served in the military a day in his life, believes he knows better than the U.S. military leadership what funding levels are needed to "keep people safe."

military expert Paul Ryan he just knows

Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan: That's Amore

I think a more complete plan was tried in Georgia 1732-1865. As I recall it didn't work so well.

From Crooks and Liars: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) isn't a fan of President Barack Obama's American Jobs Act, but he does like the idea of allowing people who are receiving unemployment benefits to work for free.

The plan is based on a program called Georgia Works which matches job seekers with employers. Under the plan, employers agree to provide up to eight weeks of on-the-job training. Workers, who can only work for 24 hours a week, continue to receive unemployment benefits instead of getting paid.

"The Georgia plan sounds pretty interesting," Ryan told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday. "I think that's something we are looking at, which is unemployment reform."

Full Story here: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/paul-ryan-supports-plan-let-unemployed-work-

The good thing about this Paul Ryan speech is everyone who was left in the room seemed to agree with him