Conservative Darling Paul Ryan Lining His Own Pockets

A Daily Beast investigation discovers:

Ryan’s Shrewd Budget Payday

Exclusive: The congressman stands to make money from his stakes in four businesses that lease land to energy companies which would benefit from $45 billion in tax breaks and subsidies in his proposed budget. Daniel Stone reports.

When House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled the GOP blueprint for cutting government spending, he asked Americans to make sacrifices on everything from Medicare to education, while preserving lucrative tax subsidies for the booming oil, mining and energy industries.

It turns out a constituency within his own personal investments stood to benefit from those tax breaks, Newsweek and The Daily Beast have learned.

The financial disclosure report Ryan filed with Congress last month and made public this week shows he and his wife, Janna, 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.

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.

I assume everyone here at Red Mass Group will be tripping over themselves to call for Paul Ryan’s resignation, or at least his stepping down from his Chairmanship of the House Budget Committee for this blatant conflict of interest with a lawmaker abusing his position to line his personal bank account and the bank accounts of his family, right?  Or will there be silence since Ryan is a Republican?

About ConcernedVoterInMass


  1. …when the story is picked up by a legitimate news organization.

  2. …as the action of letting the company keep money they would otherwise not pay in taxes due to a legal tax deduction.

    Perhaps that is why people may think this is a slanted publication as there is not such thing as an oil subsidy.

  3. this found it’s way into ANY other media?

    Hmm…. ?

  4. ConcernedVoterInMass

    Or are you just trying to delay as long as you can having to respond to the fact – yes, the fact – that there is a clear conflict of interest and, at the absolute least, the clear appearance of impropriety in how Paul Ryan used his leadership role in the U.S. House to craft a federal budget that directly financially benefits himself and his family?

    Because he has an R next to his name.  If the story was the same, but the elected official in question had a D next to his name, you’d be hollering from the rooftops.  And you know it.

  5. What I said (succinctly), is that you can call me if a credible (meaning honest) news organization picks up the story.

    Should that happen, I’ll be more inclined to take notice of it.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

  6. ConcernedVoterInMass

    So that’s one of the reasons you’re so difficult to understand; you don’t know the meanings of some of the words you use.

    You can find The Daily Beast incredible if you like, but the report is honest.  Paul Ryan and his family possess those holdings and financially benefit from Paul Ryan’s budget.

    Anything else is you sticking your head in the sand and ignoring it to the best of your abilities.

    To quote one geo999, “Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”

  7. Republican Ram Rod Radio

    The best way to enjoy this guy’s posts is to read them fast.  Just read faster and faster until you get to a period THEN take a breath and continue.

    Try this one on for size . . .

    Or are you just trying to delay as long as you can having to respond to the fact – yes, the fact – that there is a clear conflict of interest and, at the absolute least, the clear appearance of impropriety in how Paul Ryan used his leadership role in the U.S. House to craft a federal budget that directly financially benefits himself and his family?

  8. …that in concernedsoverymuch we have our very own schoolmarm.

    However, given that ‘credible’ is a subjective term,

    and that for me, honesty is the determinative factor as to whether or not I find a source credible,

    and that the fetid kook Andrew Sullivan now pens his vile screed for the daily beast,

    and that I will pay little heed to a site that would harbor him,

    I now consider the daily beast lacking in honesty and therefor not credible.

    So, notwithstanding your tedious and childish exercise in pedantry, I will see multiple, credible, and impartial sources for this story before I can take seriously anything that you or the daily beast have to say about it.


  9. ConcernedVoterInMass

    you disagree with the opinions of a specific person, so the reporting of the website must not be factual, according to you.

    I’ll give you credit – at least you admit that you seek to wrap yourself in the warmth and comfort of an echo chamber, where you limit the risk of brushing up against a differing opinion.

  10. …twisting, bending, reshaping, and mischaracterizing the words of others to conform to your own underdeveloped and intractable notions.

    the reporting of the website must not be factual, according to you

    I never said that.

    Nor did I say that I never read it.

    Yes, I take quite seriously the credence given to Sullivan by his new digs, and it is quite reasonable that it would color my overall opinion of them.

    So it would appear that you have a serious problem with truthfulness.

    As to your uninformed characterization of my information gathering habits, I’ll say only this: I probably spend twice the time reading and listening to the what the kook left has to say as I do the right.

    So, unsurprisingly, you once again step in it.

  11. ConcernedVoterInMass

    Ah, you dressed it up all fancy with “pay little heed” – very nice.

    Because if you really thought that honesty was the determinative factor – and not whether or not they employ Andrew Sullivan to write a column – you would look at the article and say: “If Paul Ryan and his family do NOT have those investments, then it’s all a lie; BUT, if Paul Ryan and his family DO possess those holdings, then it is a clear conflict of interest.”

    Instead, you bend over backwards to keep your head in the proverbial sand.

    Lipstick on a pig, much?

  12. …and not one major news outlet has picked this up.

    Just the usual gaggle of smear-left idiot bloggers.

    Not even Arianna, Queen of Kooks is running with this jive.

    A bit of advice, concernedandconsumed; just because your arms are flapping, doesn’t mean you’re flying.

  13. ConcernedVoterInMass

    about DiMasi and Cognos equally fast?  Or does Party affiliation determine whether or not you care on any given day about conflicts of interest and abuses of power by elected officials?

  14. ConcernedVoterInMass

    makes it seem even more clever!  You’re a modern day Mark Twain Mark Twain.

    (It’s also pretty hilarious when our lazy media doesn’t do a story on a Republican conflict of interest because it involves looking something up, yet Republicans and conservatives don’t look at it as yet another data point disproving the “liberal media” canard.  Keep clinging to those paranoid delusions.)

  15. Republican Ram Rod Radio

    I’m basically numb to the stories of crooked speakers, conflicts of interest and abuses of power by elected officials.  To me it’s like … ‘meh, what else is new?’

    For me the real fun is watching the finger pointing after the fact … ‘What my guy did was wrong, but your guy did the same thing last year and got away with it’ or ‘No I’m not a hypocrite you’re a hypocrite’ or that silly list you made last week.  It just goes around and around.  Everyone is guilty of it even you.  


  16. ConcernedVoterInMass

    I actually go to the trouble of remaining consistent.

    I think Finneran and DiMasi should be in jail for a long time for abusing their power.  I think it’s shameful that Finneran got off so light.

    I also think it’s shameful that David Vitter is still a member of the U.S. Senate.  However, that I think that is a punchline for many on RMG.  That’s a shame – it’s also hypocritical, so cry me a river.

    I also think that what Weiner did – while unquestionably sleazy – broke no laws.  Vitter did.

    See, I traffic in facts, not yelling and whining and head-in-the-sand politics.

    So it’s a little different.

  17. Republican Ram Rod Radio

    Ummmm – Actually you traffic in long lists of republicans that have had scandles in the past during an Anthony Weiner thread.

    But hey if you want to prove how “consistent” you are let’s see your long list of Dems ; )

  18. ConcernedVoterInMass

    This blog hypocritically says nothing about Republicans Gone Wild, but tear apart Democrats for the slightest thing. It could be said that I provide the slightest bit of counterbalance.

    But, for the sake of equality, the Dems that come to mind over the last few years in terms of sexual indiscretions (my GOP list just sexual indiscretions — the general corruption would be even longer for the GOP) include: John Edwards, Eric Massa, Eliot Spitzer, and locally Jim Marzilli.  And now Weiner.  Any big Dem sex scandals or hypocrisies (yeah, RRRR, it’s spelled scandals…) from the last few years that I’m missing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *