Leo Panitch on Obama and Globalization

From the Real News Network:

This Real News segment with Professor Leo Panitch is worth watching for those that miss Obama (perhaps should be seen together with the reading of this piece on Mike Pence, for those that think that he would be much better than the orange one). At any rate, besides the fact that Obama was not even for more than a very moderate reform of the system, and that he still justifies globalization in neoliberal terms, it seems to me that Panitch (and Paul Jay) miss the main reference for Obama's speech (at least concerning the reduction in violence) which seems to be the work of Steven Pinker (his famous book on that was The Better Angels of Our Nature), and probably his new work, Enlightenment Now. And that says a lot about Obama intellectually.

It seems that Obama now embodies the famous phrase by Upton Sinclair according to which: "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Or his paid Wall Street gigs and fancy vacations with the global jet set.

Why Manufacturing Still Matters

I've been reading in the spare time (not as much as I would like, and worse with the World Cup) Louis Uchitelle's Making It: Why Manufacturing Still Matters. I tend to agree with the general idea of the book and with many of the policy conclusions, even though I have some problems with minor points (for another post). As a result of this I went to check manufacturing output. There are many different statistics to check in the FRED database. Below a measure of industrial output.

And yes, it is below the peak from the previous recession. We were talking about this with Tom Palley, and it is clear to me that this statistics played an important role in the rise of left (Bernie) and right-wing (Trump) populism in the US. The failure of the Obama recovery to lift manufacturing, not just jobs, but output too is central to any political economy story about the last election.

Obama's Latin American Legacy

In 2009 I wrote that: "a progressive U.S. policy agenda toward Latin America should express support of and solidarity with the region’s left-of-center governments themselves." And central to that agenda was the need for: "would be reversing the corporate bias of the free trade agreements (FTAs) that have been signed over the past decade and a half." How well has Obama done in his almost 8 years by that yardstick, you ask. Not very well.

Obama never cozied up to the left of center governments in the region, even though they promoted an improvement in income inequality, which has no other parallel in the world in the 2000s, when inequality increased in almost every region. Worse it is very clear that his administration was close to several groups that tried undermine the left of center governments. His role in the 2009 coup in Honduras against democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, for example, is now plaguing his ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As noted by Marc Weisbrot a while ago: "both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces." Which, by the way, makes any claims about human rights violations, including Obama's complaints, during his historic visit to Cuba, seem somewhat hollow.

There is obviously the opening up of relations with Cuba, certainly the highlight of his two terms regarding relations with Latin America. While Obama should be praised for at least not saying openly that the US seeks regime change in the island, it is hard not side with those in Cuba that are skeptical about American intentions. In particular, because the main guidance of American policy in the region remains the defense of the economic interests of its corporations, rather than the improvement of social conditions in the region, which should be a central concern, not just for the obvious humanitarian reasons, but also because in the long run socioeconomic conditions are central for immigration flows.

In fact, Obama, who had campaigned as a critic of the effects of NAFTA going so far as promising to revise it, signed two Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries in the region, Colombia and Panama, and is pushing, with Republican support, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which includes Chile, Mexico and Peru. And Obama's visit to Argentina, which follows the one to Cuba and starts today, is basically about free trade, and perhaps opening up Mercosur (the regional bloc that includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela), and perhaps implementing a regional FTA. Latin America does not need a pro-corporate foreign policy, at least not from a Democratic president, which does not serve the region, or the working class in the US. However, a significant change in the relations with the region must wait for the next president.

The strongest, most durable economy in the world, but very unequal

Obama went to Detroit this week, and defended his economic record, including the bailout of the auto-industry. He went further on the offensive, as in the State of the Union, and suggested that Republican candidates that complain about the economy don't have a clue. In his words:

"The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world... So when you hear people -- I won't say who -- but when you hear people claiming that America is in decline, they don't know what they're talking about. They're peddling fiction during a political season." [full speech here]

On the other hand, Bernie Sanders (Obama was certainly referring to the GOP candidates, not Bernie) has made the center of his campaign the poor state of the economy, the fact that only the wealthy have benefited to a significant degree from the recovery, and that we need revolutionary changes, including a higher minimum wage, health care for all, and free access to public education, besides re-regulation of the financial sector (breaking the too-big-to-fail banks as part of that). For example, see his take on democratic socialism here.

So who is right? In a sense, both are partially correct.

In a very broad sense, Obama is correct. Meaning that the US is not only in the middle of a recovery, but also that fears of the decline of American hegemony, economic and military, are incredibly exaggerated. The US spends way more than any other country in military terms (and the differences are probably underestimated) and there is no serious security threat to US global dominance. The more than 800 military basis abroad are clear indication of that. The expansion of NATO to areas that were for a long while considered out of reach in Eastern Europe is one example. And even if there is, and there will be more blow back, because of the disastrous decisions in the Middle East, there is little doubt that no other country has the power to resist US threat of military intervention.

But more importantly, American corporations are still dominant, with a significant amount of the technological innovations that will dominate the global economy in the future still coming from the US. And one should note a good chunk of that comes from the Department of Defense (DoD), in particular Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and other government agencies that are crucial for technological innovation. Think, for example, about Google's driverless car, which would be impossible without DARPA's Grand Challenge. Note that private corporations depend, directly and indirectly, from the hidden developmental state, that promotes, subsidizes and funds many of their efforts.

So in a very real sense the American economy is still the strongest and the most durable economy in the world, as Obama said. And yet, most workers in the US have not benefited from the continuous dominance of American corporations. Only the ones at the top have benefited in any significant degree. Real wages have stagnated and lagged behind productivity, as it is well-known, and in this recovery only more recently have real wages started to increase, modestly, one might add. Even the labor market, with unemployment at 5%, while much better than Europe and many other advanced economies, is still relatively weak. The increase in employment has not been sufficient to increase the employment-to-population ratio from the same low levels that it reached after the crisis in 2008. That is, most job growth went hand-in-hand with the increase in population.

So Bernie is correct too (and in some weird way right-wing populists complaining about American decline are too, even though their pro-corporate policies would make things even worse). American corporations and elites are doing fine. The rest of the country not so much.

Dean Baker on the need for larger deficits and junk economic science on Chris Hayes

And of course on the slow recovery. In his words, "we are still bound by the Age of Austerity." It's worth insisting, since pressures for more contractionary monetary policy are mounting. Hayes bit is more generally about GOP's contradictory complain about inequality and the new Obama budget, which is more progressive than his previous ones. And yes they do talk about Big Government Republicans, but not enough in my view about small government (and pro-Wall Street) Dems. For more on that go here.

Obama on Middle Class Economics: the Dangers of Bipartisanship

In general, progressives were happy with Obama's State of the Union address. And with good reason. He defended increasing the minimum wage, hiking capital-gains tax on the wealthy, slapping a new levy on big banks and closing a loophole which allows capital-gains tax to be avoided. All good stuff. Until he got to trade issues. From the transcripts:

"21st century businesses, including small businesses, need to sell more American products overseas. Today, our businesses export more than ever, and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. But as we speak, China wants to write the rules for the world's fastest-growing region. That would put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. Why would we let that happen? We should write those rules. We should level the playing field. That's why I'm asking both parties to give me trade promotion authority to protect American workers, with strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren't just free, but fair.

Look, I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype, and that's why we've gone after countries that break the rules at our expense. But ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside our borders, and we can't close ourselves off from those opportunities. More than half of manufacturing executives have said they're actively looking at bringing jobs back from China. Let's give them one more reason to get it done."

The push for trade promotion authority is essential if the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is to be approved. I have written on the issue before, specifically on the TPP and how it has made strange bedfellows (see here). This is one of the issues in which he may actually find common ground with the new Republican Senate. And it's a cautionary tale for those that think that bipartisanship is always good.

Jeff Faux on Brad DeLong’s Defense of NAFTA

By Jeff Faux

Brad DeLong recently criticized an op-ed I wrote about the negative impact of the twenty-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement on American workers. The stakes here are higher and more immediate than the rehash of an old ideological dispute. This is not so much about the past as about the future. Corporate lobbyists are pushing President Obama and congressional Republicans to pass the NAFTA-like eleven-country Trans-Pacific Partnership” (TPP)—right after the November election. Since it took effect in 1994, NAFTA has been the template for the subsequent series of trade agreements that have accelerated the globalization of the U.S. economy. But its failure to deliver as promised has soured the public and many in Congress on so-called “free trade.” Getting lawmakers to swallow the TPP will be easier if its promoters can somehow make lemonade out of the NAFTA lemon. To start with, DeLong fails to tell the reader that he is evaluating a law he helped to produce. He worked on NAFTA when he was a deputy assistant secretary in Bill Clinton’s Treasury Department...

Read rest here.

Josh Bivens With Another Reminder About the Stupidity of Austerity

By Josh Bivens

[...] there are multiplier effects, so if actual federal government spending was $118 billion higher today (that’s the gap between actual and “should be” spending identified), then overall GDP would be roughly $180 billion higher. So, the policy decision to pursue austerity is costlier (in GDP terms) than just the difference between government spending levels [...] Government transfers—Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare—are not classified as government consumption and investment spending in the GDP accounts. Instead, they show up as increased consumption spending [...] Most of the political argument has centered on the recovery phase of this cycle, simply because the actual recession began before the Obama administration took office. Further, it’s really only been since 2011 that government spending has been a truly significant drag on growth. Before then, between the Recovery Act and what we have called “ad hoc stimulus measures” (like the payroll tax cut in 2010), we didn’t have real austerity until the fallout from 2011’s Budget Control Act (passed in the wake of Republican debt ceiling brinksmanship in summer 2011) began.

Read rest here.

Mark Blyth's book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea is highly recommended.

Dean Baker on The Promotion of Waste & Inequality By US Finance

By Dean Baker

In the crazy years of the housing boom the financial sector was a gigantic cesspool of excess and corruption. There was big money in pushing and packaging fraudulent mortgages. The country paid a huge price for the financial sector's sleaze. Unfortunately, because of the Obama administration's soft on crime approach to the bankers who became rich in the process; the industry is still a cesspool of excess and greed. Just to be clear, knowingly issuing and packaging a fraudulent mortgage is a crime, the sort of thing for which people go to jail. But thanks to the political power of the Wall Street, none of them went to jail, and in fact they got to keep the money.

Read rest here.

For more on the long-run macroeconomic causes, implications, and effects of US financialization, see recent articles here, here (subscription required) , here, here, here (subscription required), and here (subscription required); for a pertinent sociological analysis, see here

The ‘Better Off Budget’: An EPI Analysis of The Congressional Progressive Caucus Proposal

By Joshua Smith

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has unveiled its fiscal year 2015 (FY2015) budget, titled the “Better Off Budget.” It builds on recent CPC budget alternatives in prioritizing near-term job creation, financing public investments, strengthening the middle and working classes, raising adequate revenue to meet budgetary needs while restoring fairness to the tax code, protecting social insurance programs, and ensuring fiscal sustainability. The Better Off Budget aims to improve the economic well-being of the working and middle classes by focusing on ending the ongoing jobs crisis, and it provides substantial upfront economic stimulus for that purpose. This paper details the budget baseline assumptions, policy changes, and budgetary modeling used in developing and scoring the Better Off Budget, and it analyzes the budget’s cumulative fiscal and economic impacts, notably its near-term impacts on economic recovery and employment.

Read rest here.

For Dean Baker's critique of Obama's platform, see here 

Dean Baker on Obama's High Unemployment Budget

By Dean Baker

President Barack Obama’s proposed federal budget for 2015, which he sent to Congress on March 4, pushes the debate in a positive direction in several areas. For that, he should be given credit. However, on the most important issue, a budget that would get us back to full employment, his proposals fall way short. Let’s start with the positives. President Obama proposes a four-year infrastructure program that would cost just over $300 billion. This comes to $75 billion a year, or roughly 0.4 percent of GDP. This idea could go far toward improving and upgrading our infrastructure and is much needed for this purpose. It would also provide a boost to the economy. Assuming the typical multiplier of 1.5 times the amount spent for the expected stimulus, the program would create more than 800,000 jobs. A second item on Obama’s agenda is universal pre-kindergarten. This idea would provide a boost to many children from low- and moderate-income families, whose lack of early education can stunt their prospects for social mobility, according to several important studies. It would also make it much easier for their parents to work, since arranging for quality child care is often difficult and expensive. The price tag for this proposal is surprisingly low: only $76 billion over the next decade. That amount comes to 0.18 percent of projected spending over the period. The relatively small price tag for this program would be more widely known if reporters covered the budget in a way that was intended to inform their audience by contextualizing numbers in terms of overall spending.

Read rest here.

For an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute on the budget proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, see here

Resource Curse - Natural Gas is What Detonated the Ukraine Crisis

Very few, if none at all, in the West are willing to address what really triggered the latest geopolitical ‘crisis’ in the Ukraine.

From Global Research Canada

Defending Moscow’s December 18, 2013 agreement to provide Ukraine with an aid package estimated at about $15 billion, and cheaper natural gas through discounts and “gas debt forgiveness” estimated as able to save Ukraine $7 bn in one year, Vladimir Putin said the decision to invest $15 bn in ‘brotherly slavic’ Ukraine, and grant the gas discount was “pragmatic and based on economic facts”. At the time, the “investment” in Ukraine was already conditional – not only on the political issue of Ukrainian loyalty to Moscow – but on Ukraine complying with previous longstanding, often revoked, modified or extended commitments to repay gas debts dating from as far back as the early 1990s.  In December, Russia’s Finance minister Anton Siluanov said payment of the “aid or investment” funds to Ukraine, in tranches of about $2 bn each, would need Ukraine making a serious response to end-2013 estimates, by Russia, of the minimum “monetized gas debt” Ukraine has to pay. Siluanov’s ministry said this was about $2.7 bn, itself a large downward revision on other published figures from Russian sources, extending well above $5 bn. His ministry also published statements suggesting that Ukraine’s non-payment of gas taken and consumed by the country, since 2010, ran at a yearly average as high as $2 – $2.25 bn. To be sure, events starting in February as the “Maidan movement” drew massive public support in the capital and western Ukraine to overthrowing the government-in-place. This was a repeat of Egypt’s anti-Morsi flash mob street revolution, followed by the Saudi-financed military coup against elected president Morsi. In Ukraine, however, the street magic stopped in the east, and especially in Crimea where 75%-85% of votes cast in the 2010 election were for Viktor Yanukovych. To be sure, this blood-colored version of the Orange Revolution aimed at aligning Ukraine with the European Union may have scarpered further bail out payments by Moscow. Any upping of the ante, as enacted and supplied by NATO and John Kerry, could lead to Russia also making a total shutdown of gas supply to Ukraine – Kiev’s Independence Square flash mob could hope that Global Warming will shorten the winter, ease heating needs, and give Ukraine a head start for becoming a debt wracked European Union associated country – but this is far from a sure thing. The national gas debt will surely feature in the round of proposals for “Ukraine bailout” being developed by the IMF, European Commission, EU member states on a bilateral basis, the US and potentially other actors, including the ECB and the UN ECE (the UN’s European economic agency), as well as private banks and energy companies. One thing is sure and certain, much higher gas prices for Ukraine are inevitable, under any scenario.

Read rest here. 

Dean Baker on The Checkered Past of Ben Bernanke

By Dean Baker

The retrospectives of Ben Bernanke on his leaving the Fed seem to be coming in overly positive. While there is much that is positive about his tenure as Fed chair, many of these accounts have a rather selective view of history.
The part that is clearly wrong is treating Bernanke as a bookish academic who got plucked down in the middle of a financial crisis that was not his making. While Bernanke had a distinguished academic career, he had been in the middle of the action in Washington since 2002. That was when he was selected to be a governor of the Fed. He served as a governor at Greenspan’s side until he went to serve as head of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers in June of 2005. After a brief stint as the chief economist in the Bush administration he returned to take over as chair of the Fed in January of 2006.
It was during the period that Bernanke was at the Fed and his tenure in the Bush administration that the housing bubble grew to such dangerous levels. While Bernanke does not deserve as much blame for this as Greenspan, there were few people better positioned to try to deflate the housing bubble before it posed such a large risk to the economy. During this time Bernanke was dismissive of suggestions that the unprecedented run-up in house prices posed any problem. There is no evidence that he dissented in any important way from Greenspan’s view that the Fed need not be concerned about the housing bubble or the innovations in the financial industry that was supporting it.

Read rest here

Obama's Minimum Wage Hike Excludes Thousands and Fails to Look at Roots of Income Inequality

David Cay Johnston:

It's important that we restore the minimum wage. We're not talking about raising it. We're talking about restoring it. Back in the mid '60s, it was almost $11 an hour. And education is certainly very important and too much neglected in this country. We put huge barriers to bright but poor and middle-class children getting first-rate educations, especially at college. But we have much more fundamental problems than that. Many of these problems involve things like government rules that hardly anybody knows about that take money from the many and redistribute it to the few, the use of tax dollars to build factories, office buildings, and shopping malls, the rules that allow multinational corporations--not domestic, not mom-and-pop corporations, but multinational corporations-- to actually profit off their corporate income taxes by delaying payment of them for 30, 40, 50 years and having you and I let them deposit that money with the government to collect interest while the value of the tax they owe erodes.

Is Obama a Big Government Socialist?

Yes, you know the answer to that one. At any rate, there is a nice graph (which I somehow missed before) on spending growth in different administrations (source here).

As one can see, Obama is the one with the lowest rate of growth in public spending. Note also that Clinton is the one with the second and third lowest rates. Dems are the party of small government. Something discussed in this forum a while ago.

Larry Summers as Ineffectual Regulator: Tall Tales From the White House

From Dean Baker:

The Obama administration push to get Larry Summers as Federal Reserve Board Chair is moving into overdrive, as they pull out all the stops. Last week they gave the public the story of Larry Summers as a prescient but frustrated regulator. Summers saw the problems in the subprime housing market way back in 2000, but couldn’t get anything through an obstructionist Republican Congress.

Exhibit A in this story is a joint report on predatory lending by the Treasury Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that was issued in June of 2000, back when Larry Summers was Treasury Secretary. The report lists many of the abuses that underlie the explosion of bad loans in the housing bubble years.  Unfortunately the report’s recommendations were blocked...

Read Rest here.

The Bad Deal

By James K. Galbraith

Political news travels slowly, and in my casual observation progressive Europeans have held on to the myth of Barack Obama as a good man much longer than most progressive Americans did. How could a young black American from Chicago and Harvard be otherwise?

Over here reality has been evident for a while, thanks to the President's pattern of giving way to banks, lobbies, Republicans and right-wing extremists. Whether your prime interest is housing, health care, peace, justice, jobs or climate change, if you are an activist in America you have known for a long time that this President is not your friend.

Still, even on these shores disillusion often took a mildly forgiving form. The President was a “disappointment.” He was weak. He had “bad negotiating skills.” He had a tendency to “deal with hostage-takers,” to “surrender.” All of this fed the image of a man with a noble spirit, a good heart, the best intentions, but trapped by limited ability and the relentless and reckless determination of his foes.
Obama is no progressive

Read the rest here.

Seneca, Selma, Stonewall and Haymarket too

In his second inaugural President Obama referred to iconic events in the history of gender, race and gay rights, putting the idea of equality at the center of his agenda. While several pundits were surprised or offended, depending on their political leanings, with the liberalism of Obama’s discourse, and a few noted the momentous effect of pairing gay rights with gender and race, nobody (at least to my knowledge) complained about the conspicuous absence of workers’ rights.

Okay so maybe citing the notorious Haymarket riot and the martyrs of the Knights of Labor was too much to expect from an American president. In fact, Samuel Gompers and the American Federation of Labor (AFL), as it is well known, never had a positive view of the anarchists associated to more combative labor tactics. In part, that’s why while the whole world, knowingly or not, commemorates the Haymarket affair every May Day, Labor Day in the US is relegated to the first Monday of September. But still a nod to labor would have been essential to really claim that this is a president moving in a liberal direction.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the speech was great, and understand the difficulties of pushing a progressive agenda against a Republican party that refuses to engage in rational politics. But I’m still surprised of how low the idea of labor rights has sunk, that nobody even notices that they are not mentioned at all, this in a week in which we are told that the union membership rate was 11.3 percent, the lowest in almost a century.

Obama did talk about jobs, and the difficulties ahead, it’s true. And we should count our blessings, since things could have been much worse (not really a good campaign slogan though). The graph below shows the recovery in employment now compared with the Great Depression, and although slow, it’s clear that active fiscal and monetary policies stemmed a comparable fall in employment.

But that should not lead us to believe that thinks are all picture-perfect. Not only employment will take a long while to return to the pre-crisis level, but also the rate of unemployment (at 7.8 percent or so) is considerably higher than it is often understood. Since the late 1990s the participation rate, the number of workers in the labor force, has decreased from around 67 percent of population to less than 64 percent. In other words, discouraged workers that cannot find jobs, simply leave the labor market. If one were to recalculate the unemployment rate, but assume that those discouraged workers were still in the labor force (that is, using a participation rate similar to the late 1990s) then the level of unemployment would look like in the figure below.

 

The adjusted unemployment rate would be close to 12.5 percent. More importantly, it is clear that the labor market has been in bad shape throughout the whole 2000s. And, if anything things are getting worse for workers. The so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws, which are laws that prohibit unions from requiring a worker to pay dues even when the worker benefits from a union negotiated collective bargaining agreement, continue to expand, and with Michigan’s recent addition, now almost half States passed this union busting legislation. Also, restrictions on the ability of public employees to bargain collectively have been on the rise, as was prominently displayed in Wisconsin.

Note that RTW legislation seems to have a clear negative effect on real wages. If nothing else because union workers make more than non-union workers (the wage premium for union workers is 13.6 percent; see Table 4.33 in EPI’s State of Working America), and discouraging union membership then should have a negative impact on the wage mass. Note also that unionization does NOT really have a negative effect on employment (if this were true Swedes would all be unemployed), as noted by Jared Bernstein. By the way, this suggests that the evidence is that right-to-work legislation is to work creation as right to bear arms is to security of children in school. But we do live in a Doublespeak world in which job creators do not create jobs after all.

To stop this unrelenting campaign by corporations, that use State level legislation to undermine workers’ rights we need a national party willing to stand for those rights. So if not Haymarket, at least a reference to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the so-called Wagner Act, which protected the rights of unions, and spearheaded the prosperity of the so-called Golden Age. It’s great to expand the liberties of minorities, but it is also important not to forget that workers’ rights have been undermined by the rise of corporate power, and that work, as much as gender, race, ethnicity and sexuality, define who we are.

Originally published in Bob Pollin's Back to Full Employment Blog

What to expect when you are electing

Today the United States will choose between a moderate Republican, with a pro-business agenda, or Mitt Romney. Yes President Obama has saved the economy from a 1930s like catastrophe with a smaller than necessary, but still very effective, fiscal package, and monetary easing has precluded a collapse of the banking and financial sector like the Great Depression one, but his economic views and the outlook of his policies remains to the right of Richard Nixon. Obama did not disagree with Mr. Romney that government does not create jobs, and has accepted the anti-Keynesian rhetoric of the need of reducing the fiscal deficit, even though the recovery, which is undeniable, has been very slow.

Read the rest here.

Paul Ryan -- the 'Sarah Palin' of 2012?

Breaking news late US Mountain time on Friday 8/10/12 indicates that Mitt Romney will name Paul Ryan, representative from Wisconsin, author of the so-called 'Ryan budget,' and Ayn Rand radical,  as his VP pick.

A desperation move given the recent polls - Romney has 'lost the summer.' The Obama campaign, and progressives, should be ecstatic. I would start by framing the Ryan budget as a European-style austerity budget for America which will further eviscerate the lower and middle class social safety net by transferring risk to the less fortunate among us, and point out that the current European unemployment rate is 11.3% and rising under Ryan-style budgets.

Just saying.

Update: Here is an L.A. Times link detailing Ryan's Ayn Randian infatuation.  Another inconvenient truth like Romney's taxes and Bain labor minimizing facts that the Romney campaign would sooner forget; I doubt Axelrod and OFA will let them do so.