Recently, Congressman Paul Ryan has published his Budget Plan for FYs2012-2021. Many people complain, and rightly so, that his budget plan, by itself, is insufficient to erase the annual budget deficit of $1.65 trillion.
But not everyone can credibly criticize Congressman Ryan. Among those who cannot credibly do so is unrepentant liar, pseudoconservative whiner Vasko Kohlmayer, who has recently written a ludicrous, factually-wrong article that has unfortunately been published on AT.
Kohlmayer, who has NEVER proposed any plan for a balanced budget and has NEVER proposed any significant federal spending cuts (except to military spending – more about that later), dares to criticize his plan for being insufficient and even dares to claim that his proposal is actively damaging and harmful!
So for Kohlmayer, and apparently also for AT’s editors, the largest spending cut proposal proposed by ANY politician during the last 30 years, is actively damaging.
But that’s just the last paragraph of that article, which is full of factual errors and blatant lies written by a totally ignorant fool.
The article says that the Ryan Budget Plan is not serious because it supposedly doesn’t contain any significant spending cut proposals. What planet does Vasko Kohlmayer live on? It proposes to reduce annual federal spending by $620 bn, $120 bn more than what Sen. Rand Paul has proposed and 20 times more than what Ryan’s House GOP colleages have proposed. It’s the largest spending cut proposed by any politician during the last 30 years.
The article is full of such errors and lies, but you can get an accurate idea from this summary. Vasko Kohlmayer is, of course, the same ignorant fool who, not that long ago, blamed the budget deficit on the Big Bad Pentagon, vastly exaggerated America’s annual military spending, vastly UNDERSTATED America’s entitlement spending, claimed that entitlements do not constitute one category of spending, and singled out the DOD (and ONLY the DOD) for significant budget cuts while not proposing any cuts of entitlement programs. Which means he isn’t a conservative, or even a fiscal conservative, but rather a strident liberal who opposes a strong defense but is keen to defend entitlement programs. Just like the Dems.
Speaking of military spending, here is the Congressional testimony (posture statement) of Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, Chairman of the JCS, who says that the national debt is the #1 threat to America’s nat-sec:
“At about 4.5% of GDP, the return on U.S. defense spending has been immense and historic: preventing world war between great powers, securing the global commons and the free flow of international trade and natural resources, combating terrorism across the globe, and protecting the American people and our allies. However, our operations have come with stresses and strains as well as costs to our readiness. For this reason, if we are to continue to execute the missions set out by our strategy, we must recognize that returning from war and resetting the force is costly and will require several years of continued investment. Congressional support is required for our forces, their families, their equipment and training, and our military infrastructure to ensure the success of our ongoing efforts and for us to be ready to respond to new and emerging security challenges.The President’s National Security Strategy, the recently released National Military Strategy, and the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistandescribe our military approaches and ongoing operations in great detail. This posture statement will focus on the strategic priorities for the military and the Congressional support we need. My priorities remain defending our vital interests in the broader Middle East and South Central Asia, improving the Health-of-the-Force, and balancing global strategic risk.”
URL:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/02%20February/Mullen%2002-17-11.pdf
And here’s a part of what Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) has recently written on the blog of the Heritage Foundation:
“Defense spending may be an attractive target in the Budget Committee markup and on the House floor shortly thereafter, but the Constitution prioritizes providing for a common defense and spending on defense should not be treated as equal to other portions of federal spending. There is no question we need to make sure we get every penny’s worth of value out of defense spending, but simply slashing defense is not the answer. Not only are there serious risks associated with cutting defense, it also would mean that we are cutting a constitutional priority of the government to pay for a series of programs of questionable constitutional merit.”
You can read the whole thing here.
In sum, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan is not only a serious proposal, it’s the ONLY serious budget proposal put forward by ANY living politician.
UPDATE: So far, the only potential GOP presidential candidates who have endorsed the Ryan plan are Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty. However, Palin has endorsed it in unambigous words on Twitter:
“There is hope! Serious & necessary leadership rolls out serious & necessary reform proposal. Good start (from Dec.
http://on.wsj.com/eP0Kwo
)”
http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/55300105208729600#
Whereas Romney and Pawlenty have endorsed in it ambigous, mild words which will allow them to dump Ryan and his plan if need be.
