GM still ringing political bells
Reader poll
Photo 
Paul Ryan
Photo 
Russell Feingold
Photo 
Paulette Garin
The closure of the Janesville General Motors plant and the resulting unemployment continue to play a role in politics as the midterm congressional elections approach.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-1st District, issued a statement last week, challenging the claim by General Motors and the Obama administration that GM has paid off its bailout loan from the federal government.
The $6.7 billion payment leaves about $43 billion of the $50 billion bailout package unpaid, according to news reports. The government holds GM stock—a 61 percent share in GM—to account for the rest of the money.
“The fact is: The federal government still owns GM,” Ryan said. “The government remains deeply entrenched in the auto industry, and the American people deserve to have transparent information on the financial health of GM.
“If anyone is owed a clear and honest explanation, it is those hit hardest by the downturn in the auto industry, including those I serve in Janesville, Kenosha, Oak Creek and the surrounding communities in southern Wisconsin,” Ryan said.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who also is up for re-election in November, agreed.
“Rep. Ryan is correct that while GM has repaid the government $6.7 billion, it still owes billions of taxpayer dollars. Rather than misleading people, GM should be up front with the American taxpayers and present a clear plan to return their money. The autoworkers in Wisconsin hit by this terrible economy deserve honesty, not p.r. campaigns.”
Ryan’s statement raised questions with some, however, who asked why he voted last month against a bill to extend unemployment compensation if he is so concerned for the laid-off workers in his district.
Democrat Paulette Garin of Kenosha, who is still considering a run against Ryan, called Ryan’s vote “reprehensible.”
Ryan said his vote signaled his displeasure with a measure that increases the national debt.
“If this legislation was paid for, I would have gladly supported it,” Ryan said. “However, rather than prioritizing spending to offset the cost of this bill, the majority irresponsibly decided to borrow an additional $18.1 billion to pay for it.”
“Since January 2009, Washington has enacted into law $1.8 trillion in new spending,” Ryan said. “We can no longer afford to borrow from foreign governments, impose new tax hikes or plunge our nation deeper into debt. Washington’s reckless spending spree is driving us ever closer to a debt crisis. Rather than exacerbate this crisis and force taxpayers to finance short-term benefit extensions, we need to prioritize spending for those that need it most and advance job creation and pro-growth economic policies.”
Garin asked where Ryan’s fiscal conservatism was when much larger sums were borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“He blatantly ignores the needs of his constituents, especially those in his hometown of Janesville,” Garin charged. “… If the vote doesn’t benefit his corporate benefactors, he’s going to vote ‘no.’ If he can’t privatize it, he's going to vote ‘no.’”
Garin said Ryan’s personal likeability belies his true colors.
“It’s sort of like ‘pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,’ you know? Don’t look at what he says, look at what he does,” she said.

Jul 8, 2010 at 3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
well said frg. copy/paste that over on the ryan story...
http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2010/jul...
Jul 8, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan won't extend unemployment benefits to those who are trying to meet their basic needs because of the national debt, and yet he wants to extend tax cuts. How does extending tax cuts on such items as dividends, captial gains and estates reduce the national debt? Ryan doesn't care about the national debt, what he cares about is taking care of those who own him.
Jul 8, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
The only backside these politicians are trying to save is their own at taxpayer expense. Paul Ryan even voted against extending unemployment benefits. "The more you give the unemployed, the less likely they are to look for work" Paul Ryan does not know the people he is supposed to represent. He is a bad guy posing as a good guy.
May 21, 2010 at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with Paulette Garin. Paul Ryan had no problem with Bush borrowing from China to wage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it comes to helping the people he was elected to represent who have lost jobs to China and other countries, he cries fiscal irresponsibility. Paul Ryan needs to go, and Paulette Garin is the one we need to send him on his way.
May 4, 2010 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Napalm - Where to begin?
May 4, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
GM is done in janesville lets move on people.
May 3, 2010 at 8:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
What really upsets me is that.....we haven't heard a world from our polictians since GM has left....where have they been and why haven't they done anything for our town to see to it that there are new jobs coming here??? I will not be voting for them...:( Paul Ryan tell me what President Bush did for you other than get us in the mess we are in?????
May 3, 2010 at 6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Amazingly as Paul Ryan speaks out against MORE SPENDING there is a "Monday Morning Quarterback"! Who would have thought?? First GM turned their back on the residence of Janesville!! Second, is it ironic that a woman that is out of touch with what is REALLY going on in Washington would quote a movie from 1939? Out of touch I would say!! What facts did Garin have to say about the topic.....Wait for it... Wait for it.... NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. Finally WE THE PEOPLE have a representative that is willing to go against the current Administration and say, " ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"!! And Garin wants to belittle him!! WOW!! Garin don't bother, if you are that withdrawn from our problems then we don't want you to represent us! Oh and BTW I live in Janesville!!!
May 3, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
First, the idea that the TARP bailout funds no longer need to be used for other purposes like balance sheet padding, capital expenditures, or operating expenses show that the company is in at least a slightly better position than it was when it received the loan. If the cash it has is better suited repaying a loan and reducing future interest expenses, then don’t leave it sitting in a bank account.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.