It's Not A Consistency Thing, In This Case

Don't have a problem with Ryan opposing stimulus bill but still trying to bring some of those funds to his constituents. He might think it's a bad idea but try to make the best of it. I don't even have a problem with his stated justifications:

"Yet, in Ryan's letter to the Labor Department in October 2009, he backed the Energy Center of Wisconsin's grant application for stimulus money 'to develop an industry-driven training and placement agenda that intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."'

After all, he might claim that though government money can create jobs on occasion, it is a zero-sum game where the benefits in Wisconsin are balanced by losses elsewhere, and that it was his job to represent his constituents first and foremost.

My main problem is that he would be wrong that the stimulus was (and still is) zero-sum given the relevant economic conditions (i.e. lack of aggregate demand, balance sheet recession, zero lower-bound on interest rates). He's got the economics all wrong, and that's partially been to blame for continuing problems.