The American Spectator : Ryan's Right Flank

Text Size

Ryan’s Right Flank

By W. James Antle, III on 3.27.12 @ 6:09AM

The House Republican budget encounters friendly fire on the path to prosperity.

When Paul Ryan unveiled the House Republicans’ budget proposal for fiscal 2013, many Democratic campaign strategists were ecstatic. A Politico headline blared, “For Democrats, GOP budget is Christmas in March.” They eagerly anticipated some election-year demagoguery, accusing Republicans of “ending” Medicare and perhaps reprising images of Ryan pushing a wheelchair-bound old lady off a cliff.

The Ryan budget put many Republicans in a similarly festive mood. Compared to President Obama’s fiscal blueprint, the House GOP plan reduces spending by more than $5 trillion, deficits by more than $3 trillion, taxes by $2 trillion, and the national debt by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. Over the longer term, it envisions a sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio and a solvent, consumer-based Medicare system.

But not all reactions fit neatly along party lines. There were Democrats who privately — and in the case of liberal Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, quite publicly — sympathized with the premium support model for Medicare. There were Republicans who feared tackling tough fiscal issues in an election year, perhaps preferring to take a Senate-style break from passing budgets at all.

Most surprising of all, however, was the pushback from fiscal conservatives who didn’t think Ryan’s budget went far enough. The Club for Growth opposed the proposal on the ground that it takes too long to balance the budget — deficits aren’t eliminated until 2040, nearly 30 years from now — and waives most of the mandated spending cuts required by the failure of the supercommittee.

“The Club for Growth urges Republicans to support a budget that balances in the near future and complies with the Budget Control Act,” Club president Chris Chocola, a former GOP congressman, said in a statement.

A FreedomWorks blogger gave the plan a more mixed assessment. ”Unfortunately, the plan doesn’t really try to balance the budget or specify a single cabinet agency for elimination,” complained Dean Clancy, who went on to say, “Like last year’s Ryan budget, the new version takes Social Security and defense off the spending-cut table.”

Two leading Tea Party freshmen, Reps. Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash, went so far as to vote against their chairman in committee. As a result, the plan only cleared the House Budget Committee by a narrow 19 to 18 vote. Last year, only four House Republicans in total voted against the Ryan plan.

Even before the House budget was announced, Sens. Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Mike Lee lined up behind a proposal that eliminates cabinet-level departments and purports to reach balance faster without raising taxes. Today a group of conservative House members who belong to the Republican Study Committee will propose their own alternative budget.

The RSC seeks to balance the budget in five years. The House conservatives propose setting discretionary spending at $931 billion — about $2 billion below where it was under Nancy Pelosi in 2008 — and freezing it there over the five-year period it takes for the budget to balance. According to RSC staff, “This number is reached by starting with the House Budget Committee’s proposal of $1.028 trillion and subtracting the $97 billion cut to discretionary spending required this year by the August debt ceiling increase.”

RSC chairman Jim Jordan said in a conference call Monday that the House conservatives’ proposal “deals with the sequester in a more straightforward way” than the Republican conference plan. Under the RSC budget, non-defense discretionary spending would shrink from $377 billion in 2013 to $329 billion in 2022. The plan endorses Ryan’s basic proposals to reform Medicare and block grants both Medicaid and SCHIP to the states.

“Obviously, we though we could do better,” Rep. Scott Garrett said Monday in explaining why the RSC once again introduced an alternative budget with deeper, more immediate spending cuts. But Jordan emphasized they were trying to improve upon the official House Republican budget, not undermine it. “There is a budget that will pass the House this week,” he told the conference call, “and it will be Paul Ryan’s budget.”

“The vast majority of the RSC will be supportive [of Ryan’s budget] because it is something that can get passed,” Jordan said. “It’s a heck of a lot better than the president’s budget.” But the RSC wanted to demonstrate that House Republicans feasibly could and should go even further.

There is always the danger of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Ryan has gotten the full House to vote in favor of far-reaching Medicare reforms and a budget that spends much less than the president’s. Republicans were hoping to repeat that accomplishment this year.

But there is also a danger in relying too heavily on future Congresses to carry out bold spending reforms over a long period of time, when legislators routinely bust through the spending caps they set for themselves. Will any spending blueprint proceed perfectly according to projections through 2040?

Already, the conservative pushback has caused Ryan to emphasize that his plan balances the budget more rapidly when scored against the economic growth he believes his supply-side tax policies will stimulate. The choice to remain in traditional Medicare, new to this year’s version of the budget, also creates the possibility of starting reforms and realizing savings sooner. Neither the House Republicans nor the RSC currently propose any changes for anyone aged 55 and over.

Given the gargantuan federal budget, it can’t hurt to debate more ideas for cutting spending. And for once in the Washington budget battles, congressional Republicans are facing pressure from the right and not just the left.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (51) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Indy| 3.27.12 @ 8:14AM

The weakness of the Ryan plan has been that it leaves the baseline untouched, the stimulus spending is embedded in the baseline, that's insane, he should have gone back to 2008 discretionary spending levels as a starting point. Not balancing the budget until 2040 is not realistic, a future Congress can change everything. I applaud Ryan for proposing Medicare reform, the biggest cost driver but the other plan has merit for making cuts now. A pro growth revenue plan is also a must. It's time to eliminate / consolidate government departments / agencies and restore power to the states.

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 9:11AM

Until the Republicans call for cutting the military budget by at least 50% and bringing the troops home from all over the world, there is no chance that this country can return to fiscal sanity. Obama and the Democrats are going to do a lot of it anyhow, if re-elected. It is time to double down on peace. For 20 years we have been wasting our resourses worldwide while the Chinese and others have been using their's to build a modern economy. Most of the world does not want us around telling them what to do. It is time to let the people of the world figure it out for themselves.

Indy| 3.27.12 @ 9:34AM

I agree there is room for cuts in the defense budget but 50%??? I don't support that, show me an analysis which justifies cuts of 50%. Medicare is the huge cost driver, Ryan is correct.

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 10:09AM

Jack is Ron Paul's alter ego - he prefers that all of our defensive military activity take place here, at home, on American soil, so that we can enjoy the collateral and civilian casualties here at home, rather than giving the homeland of our enemies those "benefits."

In brief, Jack is completely, monolithically, perfectly ignorant of fundamental strategic thought. As is his personal deity, Ron Paul.

They look good together, though.

Don't Tread on Me!

Indy| 3.27.12 @ 10:29AM

DTOM, thanks I am all too familiar with Jack's posts, I want to encourage him to back up his posts with reasonable analysis but I'm not expecting anything. Ron Paul who advocates for massive defense cuts has already agreed to leave those decisions to progressives like Barney Frank and Soros supporters (search "Sustainable Defense Task Force)

I would trust Jim DeMint on where to make cuts, not Soros and other progressives.

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 12:19PM

Ron Paul hs put out the numbers that show tht a truely defensive foreign policy would cost about 50% of what we spend now. There is no reason and never has been a reason for our worldwide empire after the Soviet Union collapsed. Think of what our energy production in this country would be is we had put a small those resourses into enery production here instead of proping up the criminals and kleptocrats in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Europeans, Japan, Arabs and Israeli's can pay for their own defenses without bailouts from the American Taxpayers. Nor should we waste taxpayer assets and blood saving the intrests of American, bankers and oil tycoons. Let them figure out how to operate overseas on their own.

I suggest you boys Read War is a Raccett by General Smeadly Butler the late Commandant of the Marines and a 2 time winner of the Congressional Medal ofHonor.

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 1:19PM

Jack;

It is not up to the federal government to "put resourses (sic) into energy production"

It is not their job - that is the private sector's job.

Defense of the country IS the federal government's job.

You are entitled to think that our allies' governments are led by kleptocrats - but why do you object to buying peace with cash rather than our brave troops' blood?

There is only one sure way to prevent war; you must completely convince your opponent that he will be annihilated if he attacks you. Our military is pretty convincing on that point, given a clear objective and sane rules of combat.

Ron Paul and Barack Obama both make the opposite argument quite convincingly.

Yesterday Obama told the Russians that we will disarm as soon as he is re-elected. Ron Paul has been publicly promising the same thing for decades.

There is no denying it.

Big strong military = no war.

Little simpy, underfunded military = war.

It's that simple - why don't you get this simple concept? Or is it that you won't get it?

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 2:35PM

Nonsense: We would not disarm. We would be defending our own borders and shores, not everyone else's. The Federal budget was peanuts when we did that. The money wasted on foreign adventures ever since the Spainish American War has bankrupted the country. WW1 was sold as the war to end all wars. Instead it became the first of an endless series of wars, that now have no end in sight. The time is long past to just bring the troops home to their families and let the world defend itself. We need no permanent entaglemenats and alliances. End the Fed, NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, the TSA, the Dept of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, etc.

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 4:38PM

Jack, Jack, Jack,

In 2012, the Defense Department is less than 690 Billion of a 2,500 Billion dollar budget. Deficit spending exceeds the entire defense department budget.

So when you suggest cutting the Defense Department Budget to FIX the budget deficits you make an imaginary, illogical, non-operative argument. Eliminating the Defense Department will not fix the budget shortfalls. Thirty years ago you could have paid the budget deficits by ending the defense department appropriations.

So the bottom line of your argument is, we need to skip defending the country as the Constitution directs the federal government to do with great specificity. In favor of a bunch of imaginary Constitutional duties that were never envisioned by the Founders or the Constitution.

And you call yourself a libertarian?

I call you an idiot.

You therefore need not be a Communist.

But if you are, at least, you won't be an idiot.

Don't Tread On Me...

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 2:40PM

I would rather waste my money on Medicare for Americans rather on stupid foreign wars and foreign aid for no sane reasons. The Democrats will use his budget to scare the elderly that their heathcare and Social security will be slashed. If you slash the needless spending on the military, education, and corporate welfare, then maybe the entitlements can be talked about.

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 4:39PM

Read the Constitution some time, you will find it fascinating - and new, to you.

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 5:01PM

iIread it plenty of times it says that only Congress has the power to declare war. It also contains the the 4thm 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th amendments which have been shredded by both parties.

Indy| 3.27.12 @ 5:08PM

Jack, How can you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter and support "wasting" money on Medicare? I thought Ron Paul stands by the Constitution?

National Defense is a Federal responsibility, I missed Medicare as an enumerated power?

Ron Paul has no plan to reform entitlements, he only wants to continue funding them by slashing everything else. The window for reforming entitlements will soon pass, at least Paul Ryan has the courage to put a plan on the table. If entitlements are not reformed, revenues will be fully consumed by those programs by 2049 if not sooner.

http://www.heritage.org/budget.....tax-levels

Yes the Democrats will scare seniors, most of the GOP does a terrible job of driving home the message that for everyone 55 and older, nothing will change. For those younger, the plan has to change or there will be nothing for anyone, the program will be bankrupt. Instead of educating voters ( i.e. explain that on average, citizens pay in $150,000 over their lifetime but Medicare pays out ~$400,000 per citizen, the math simply does not work), the GOP lets the media / Democrats drive the message.

So, what does Ron Paul do? His message is all about slashing defense, bringing all the troops home, ending the war on drugs but he never says anything about the GOP Plans which are to leave entitlements alone for those 55 and over, he could help deliver the message but no, he has no interest in that...

Jack in Wi.| 3.28.12 @ 12:17AM

Paul has been for real entitlement reforms. He wants to get rid of most of them. But only after we have quit wasting our money overseas and on corporate welfare. The country is bankrupt. The elderly need heathcare and Social Security. I am not going to back all these wars while they throw grandma off diaysis and grandpa off Social Security The wars of the last 100 years and foreign aid are the main reasons the country is bankrupt.

Indy| 3.28.12 @ 8:30AM

He has no plan for entitlement reform, the wars of the last 100 years / foreign aid are why we are bankrupt? You haven't done your homework.

TrueBlue | 3.28.12 @ 4:29PM

It's a waste of money to ensure secure sea-lanes for trading? It's a waste of money to prevent China from expanding as Russia did at the end of WW2? It's a waste of money for the majority of terrorist attacks to be attempted/succeed overseas rather than here in our own cities?

I can't think of a single military member that would agree with you if asked the question, "If you had a choice between attacks on our troops overseas or against US civilians on our home soil, which would you choose?"

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.27.12 @ 1:30PM

Jack, give me your address and I will send you a calculator. Cut defense spending to ZERO for the last ten years and for the next ten years and tell me exactly the impact on the deficit? You are misinformed, horrible at math or likely both.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 3.27.12 @ 3:29PM

False. The RSC's and the Heritage Foundation's plan would both balance the budget within a decade (not merely promise to balance it as the Paul budget plan does) without any defense cuts whatsoever. Cutting the defense budget by half would totally gut the military.

Jack in Wi.| 3.27.12 @ 5:04PM

Good riddence to half the Defense budget. Huge numbers of people are coming on to Social Security and Medicare. They need it more then a bunch of foreigners who are using their savings on their defense budgets to fund their own Social security systems.

JP| 3.27.12 @ 4:02PM

This nation now spends more on education than we do on defence; we spend collectively more on transportation than we do on defence; if one adds all the public pensions, medical, and social programs - those programs added together are twice as much as defence spending.

Jack, we could wipe out the DOD in toto, and we won't make a dent on our defecit.

sirbourbon| 3.28.12 @ 12:58AM

What percentage does the congress allocate to the defense budget compared to Russia, China and the NATO countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U....._countries

Still despite those enormous budgets that congress allocates year after year, most of the "defense spending" goes to military adventurism not to true defense.

Stirring up hornets nests overseas doth not maketh safer; it maketh us unsafer.

The neocons' formula is to invite "blowback" with another 9-11 type attack. "Blowback" is a CIA term. The US was part of a multi-national force in the middle east. The US Marines in stationed in Beruit paid with their lives on October 23, 1983 for the "blowback" that came with a truck full of explosives that was driven into their barracks. The "collateral damage" was: 300 plus Americans died as the result of militarism and a wrong-headed foreign policy.

Bankrupting our nation to pay for attacking Iraq; a nation that never had a thing to do with 9-11! We've spent a decade in Afghanistan defending their borders while ours remain wide open is not a good deal!

Where do they come up with silliness like this:
"so that we can enjoy the collateral and civilian casualties here at home, rather than giving the homeland of our enemies those 'benefits.'"

1) The neocons and the Liberals Democruds have added $ One Trillion more in debt by needlessly attacking a country that was not responsible for 9-11!
2) That undeclared war has created a huge bureaucracy and unconstitutional laws like the NDAA and the Patri-idiot act that is doing "collateral damage" to our civil liberties!
3) al-Qaeda could never have done as much harm to the Constitution as the Dem/Repubs who have passed laws and created anti-4th amendment, totally moronic agencies, like the TSA.
4) Killing children in Kandahar can't be covered up by American "exceptionism" theories.
5) Abandoning the sane and thoroughly constitutional policy as explained by the Father of the country is insane.
6) abandoning the Christian "golden rule" which advises to do unto others as you would like others treat you is also the path of fools, maniacs and evil men.
7) Congressman Paul says it makes little sense to have US taxpayers subsidize the defense budgets of Italy,Germany, South Korea, Japan and et al.
8) Seeing the world does not entail seeing it on board a war ship or an aircraft carrier. There are more peaceful ways to see it.
9) The middleast nations were once friendly towards the US. We kept out of their internal affairs. It was only after we foolishly joined "multi-national " forces to stick our nose in their business that they began to resent our military presense in their countires.
10) Listening to Hannity and Levin and Savage instead of reading the words of Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and J.Q. Adams has led many conservatives astray of what a real conservative foreign policy looks like.
11) Conservatives are supporting socialism abroad by hanging onto the false notion that Obama is not a socialist in his foreign policy.
12) Ron Paul is the best choice for America. His noninterventionist policy would return America to her traditional roots. Having a constitution based foreign policy is the best policy to insure there is no "collateral damage" in America.

Richard Ryan| 3.27.12 @ 11:38AM

I believe that block granting Medicaid and introducing market force competition in Medicare would result in much more savings than Ryan estimates. Add meaningful tort reform and the savings would be enormous. This plan is not going to get through the senate as is. If we could cut more, of course we could, but you have to get something through both House and Senate.

K.Hunter| 3.28.12 @ 1:53PM

While there are other weaknesses to the Ryan budget it is certainly a great improvement over anything offered by the administration. Or the Democrat senate for that matter.

To my mind the main flaw in the Ryan budget is something that it cannot address directly; that it continues the immoral and unfair income tax which will undoubtedly return in dhort order to the sixty thousand plus page monstrosity that it is now unless it is replaced entirely by a better, more growth oriented system of taxation.

My personal preference would be for some variation of the Fair Tax proposal already offered in both the house and senate. The Fair Tax' greatest weakness is the relative ease with which the tax rate can be changed but that can be addressed by either legislation requiring approval by a majority of state legislatures or by the repeal of the seventeenth amendment so that state government's are once again represented in the federal legislature.

martin j smith| 3.27.12 @ 8:39AM

If you ask for little you get little but if you ask for more you might get more than you would have otherwise. That is what this kind of debate is all about. In the end it will be about: Beat Obama --and that is as it should be.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.27.12 @ 11:14AM

Oh my God, it's not a perfect Plan! We could do better! We could have it all!

"The Ryan Plan leaves the baseline untouched. It doesn't Balance the Budget til 2040. It doesn't consolidated Government Departments and Restore Power to the States."

I'm not picking on Indy. He's one of the "Good Guys" and I understand his Concerns. A lot of people feel exactly the same way. But, like a Great Man is fond of saying: "I live in Realville."

Every Journey of 10,000 miles begins with ONE STEP.

We've been at the Job of: Wiping our Ass with the Constitution, for a very long time. It's folly to believe that we can fix this problem Wham Bam, Thank You Ma'am. It just doesn't work that way. We'll be lucky if we can get HALF of the things that we need to get. We have a Democrat Party who thinks that we can Beg, Borrow, and Steal their way to Prosperity. They are single minded in their Quest for Ultimate Power and Control over everything we do, say, or think, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. They are more than willing to "Throw the Baby out with the Bath Water", and if the Baby should survive, call in a 3rd Doctor to perform the Abortion.

The Democrat "Plan" for everything was summed up quite concisely by The Treasury Secretary who doesn't know how to fill out his Taxes on Turbo Tax - Timothy FED Geithner: "As I sit here, I cannot say that we have a Plan. But I can say that We don't like yours."

Get the picture?

There's no such thing as COMPROMISE. There's no such thing as Reaching Across The Aisle. Not with this bunch. Not now.

You don't believe me? Go read last week's Big Story in the WAPO about the Lying, Double Crossing Muslim, in the Oval Office. He is Hell Bent on the Destruction of this Country as a Super Power, and all you need to do is read what he said to Russian President Medvedev. He will SELL US OUT to the Left's beloved Soviet Union. The GOOD GUYS in the Cold War. The Founding Fathers of everything they believe. Lenin, Uncle Joe, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Putin, and Obama. The Future faces on a New Mt. Rushmore, dedicated to the Ideal of ARBEIT MACHT FREI, and a Land where everything is provided by THE STATE, and to Hell with GOD.

This is what we're up against. Ryan's plan is a 1st step, of a long journey to come. ROME wasn't Re-built in a Day, and neither will The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.

But we have to stick together.

LiveFreeOrDie| 3.27.12 @ 1:44PM

The problem I have with your line of thinking is the initial "small step" is not the beginning of a journey. It is a single action in time and subject to the will of every future congress. Let's be honest with ourselves and recognize this for what it is, an election year budget. It's the "safe" path to November. Frustrated? Two words, term limits. Politicians at the national level might stop taking every third year off out of fear for their pathetic political "careers."

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.27.12 @ 8:01PM

Two words - Term Limits?

Three Words - Never gonna happen.

Two more words - Now what?

K.Hunter| 3.28.12 @ 2:01PM

Agreed Mr. Pennell but should we not be seeking the greatest possible opportunities for economic growth under our tax system? As it stands the illusion of the corporate income tax is a federal stranglehold on business, and therefore economic, growth. I'm sure that you would agree that businesses collect rather than pay taxes because their customers, ultimately the consumer, actually pays businesses taxes.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 3.27.12 @ 8:57AM

Those fiscal-only conservatives who oppose the Ryan Plan are dead wrong, and they owe Paul Ryan an apology.

"The Club for Growth opposed the proposal on the ground that it (...) and waives most of the mandated spending cuts required by the failure of the supercommittee.
"The Club for Growth urges Republicans to support a budget that balances in the near future and complies with the Budget Control Act," Club president Chris Chocola, a former GOP congressman, said in a statement.
A FreedomWorks blogger gave the plan a more mixed assessment. "Unfortunately, the plan doesn't really try to balance the budget or specify a single cabinet agency for elimination," complained Dean Clancy, who went on to say, "Like last year's Ryan budget, the new version takes Social Security and defense off the spending-cut table.""

In other words, the C4G and FW want to keep the sequester and don't care what exactly does it cut or how deeply - or, even worse (and more likely), they want it EXPLICITLY to cut defense spending deeply, even though it has already been cut deeply: over 50 crucial weapon programs closed in 2009 and 2010, further ones in January 2011, $178 bn cut out of defense in FY2012 under the last round of Gates' "reforms", the first round of BCA-ordered cuts ($487 bn), and of course, the New START disarmament treaty, which requires deep cuts in America's nuclear weapons and their delivery systems (which cuts have imposed ADDITIONAL significant costs on the cash-strapped DOD, because dismantling nukes and their carriers costs a lot more than maintaining them, even for many decades).

By his own admission (see his GWU speech of 4/13/2011), Obama had cut $400 bn out of defense programs by April 2011, and the first tier of the BCA mandates further defense cuts by $487 bn, which means that even without sequestration, defense spending will not return to its FY2011 levels until FY2019 at the earliest.

All of these cuts were mandated before the sequester even kicked in.

The sequester, if allowed to stand, would cut defense spending by a FURTHER $600 bn over a decade, ON TOP OF, not instead of, ALL THE CUTS already made and scheduled.

And yet, the C4G and FW support it and demand that the cuts fall on defense instead of other government programs?

Why does it matter to them where the axe falls? By Clancy's own admission, the Ryan plan would cut entitlements "in order to make room for more military spending", so if it cuts spending elsewhere, why don't they like it? Why does it matter to them that defense spending specifically be singled out for deep cuts? Why do they want to gut defense?

There is ample evidence, along with repeated statements by all Joint Chiefs and Obama's own SECDEF, not to mention many retired officers and independent defense analysts, that sequestration would gut the military.

Combined with the first round of BCA-ordered defense cuts and with the shrinkage and eventual zeroing out of GWOT spending resulting from withdrawal from Afghanistan, it would result in a total military budget cut of 34% - more deeper than those implemented after the Cold War and far deeper than those that followed the Vietnam War.

Those defense cuts gutted the military, forcing the US to rebuild it later down the road at a great fiscal cost. What makes anyone think that this round of defense cuts will be any different?

Defense spending amounts to just 15% of the total federal budget, yet it is slated to shoulder 50% of the budget cuts mandated both by the 1st tier of the BCA and by the sequester. (GWOT spending accounts for another 4% of the TFB but is not subject to sequestration.) Why has it been singled out so unfairly for such deep, disproportionate cuts?

Moreover, equating defense spending with other kinds of federal spending is ridiculous, un-conservative, and against the Constitution. Providing for a strong defense is the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government (something that self-styled "armchair constitutionalist" Dean Clancy still doesn't understand, and neither does the C4G), one that it may not shirk away from even if financial circumstances are tough. It was also considered one of the highest duties of the federal government and of any statesman by the Founders. OTOH, the vast majority of other federal spending is unconstitutional as it is not authorized by the Constitution. Equating defense with these unconstitutional, wasteful programs is plainly ridiculous.

A prudent budgeter, or a genuine constitutional conservative, would not advocate cutting everything equally across the board without looking at what you're cutting. No, you look at every government program and function, line by line; you fully fund Constitutional federal functions first; and then you strike out funding for anything wasteful and/or not authorized by the Constitution. This means that the Edu Dept., the DOE, the DOL, the DOC, the DOT, the DHUD, the USDA, the DHHS, and the DHS must go, along with all federal subsidies for anything, and there must be a slow but steady transition away from entitlement programs.

fiscal| 3.27.12 @ 9:51AM

The issue on defense spending needs to be rational based on the facts, not the ideology you have stated. While I agree that it is necessary and shouldn't be in the same bundle as the rest, we currently spend about 43% of the world total on defense and more than 6 times the number 2, which is China. Here is the list:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures"

There is a huge amount of room for cuts in the defense budget. Medicare also needs to be cut, and that is not difficult once you realize that half of all Medicare costs go to people in their final year of life. The public should not pay for people to be kept alive through expensive means -- we just can't afford it. I know that sounds cruel, but people do have the option of paying for a private plan that does that.

John - TMF| 3.27.12 @ 11:47AM

No, there isn't. The military is running on dwindling fumes, old equipment, and little hope of new designs ever being pushed beyond the gold-plated so they fail stage.

We need new tanks (which are expensive), new armored vehicles (which are expensive), new transport aircraft (which are expensive)... new fighters (which are expensive)... The navy is starved of combat ships... support ships... submarines... aircraft... gee we are getting to the point where we cannot even defend our own shipping routes on which we are heavily dependent.

Personnel costs are skyrocketing because we keep layering more and more politically correct nonsense on the troops. We aren't training soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines anymore... we are coddling "members"... Instead of fighting and supporting, we are managing, prosecuting, and pandering.

The current policies only waste money in the fact that the funds are misdirected. The money can't be cut, it must be spent on actually defending this nation from its increasing number of threats from enemies who are at war with us, even though we don't want to admit it.

Defense spending as a percentage of GDP is the smallest it has been since just after World War II and before the 1949-70 Cold War build up.

We have a large defense budget because we are one of the largest nations on the planet, with the largest economy and the third largest population. We are also still the leader of the Free World, whether we want to be or not.

Isolationism, just like its fraternal twin Pacifism is a fools errand that reaches far into the classic definition of insanity. In a world where Iran can orbit a satillite, and it takes 90 minutes for that object to circle the globe, there is no "fortress America". In a world where the mere existence of religious plurality and secular democratic government is an apostasy worthy of death to that same nation-state that can launch that satellite; we have little hope of "peace".

The Ryan plan is timid. It is byzantine. It is unworkable and unsustainable. The spirit behind its push is Romney-esque; incremental, bureaucratic, overly complex, dependent on too many variables, and too few constants.

I like Paul Ryan very much, but he's being consumed by the Establishment. It has little taste for the difficult things, and fully intends to keep kicking the can down the road... because that's what it does, maintain the status quo.

We need to cut the budget, but DoD cannot be bled more, or we certainly will find ourselves doing the real bleeding. Weakness invites attack, and we are growing increasingly weak.

r/John - TMF

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 3.27.12 @ 11:55AM

Good Idea! Let's stop paying for the "final year of life". Problem is, who decides when it is YOUR final year of life?

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 4:40PM

Secretary Sebelius - that fair and honest judge of citizens' right to life.

Good grief.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 3.27.12 @ 2:45PM

You are totally wrong.

Firstly, while I agree that the discussion of defense spending needs to be "rational based on the facts", I did not state an ideology. I stated a (Constitutional) FACT. Providing for the common defense (which means, first and foremost, funding it adequately) is not only a legitimate federal function, it is the #1 Constitutional DUTY of the federal government. That is the law of the land.

Secondly, the claim that the US spends 6 times more on defense than China is a lie. China spends only 4 times less. Its real military budget is at least $150 bn, far larger than what it admits to, and it's set to double by 2015. China's military budget was $140 bn (according to the DOD) as early as FY2007.

Thirdly, your claim that "There is a huge amount of room for cuts in the defense budget" is false. No, there isn't. After all the cuts made by Obama, Gates, and Panetta, there is little waste left in the defense budget, as proven by the fact that Panetta was able to find only $60 bn in efficiencies over 5 years in the defense budget and had to make the remaining cuts (over $200 bn) from the force structure and weapon programs.

Defense cannot take further cuts on top of those already mandated by the first tier of the BCA.

DTOM| 3.27.12 @ 10:16AM

It is depressing that so many have either forgotten or never known that one of the main benefits of having the foremost military on earth is that this capability allows us to have the strongest currency on earth,

Given the relentless attacks on the strength of the dollar being launched in Washington today by the spectacular deficit overspending by the Federal Government, any notion that military spending is part of the problem is one of either ignorance or willful malfeasance.

Federal spending has gone up by TRILLIONS of dollars - military spending is on the order of 500 BILLION - it has not risen.

Any discussion of cutting or gutting the US defense budget should be conducted in FRENCH.

Damn! Some of you people are uninformed!

Don't Tread On Me

Philip Johnson| 3.27.12 @ 10:29AM

All of the comments and discussion here are valid and worthy. The aspect that is most discouraging to me is the presumption that people over the age of 50 in this country are so stupid as to be so easily swayed by the Democrat machine attack ads on this issue. Are we to assume that every senior citizen is so selfish and ignorant as to care nothing of what this debt issue is doing to our welfare?
As one of the other responders noted, I believe that it was George Patton who made the comment that it is better to go to war today with a good plan than to wait until tomorrow for a perfect plan. We should all support the Ryan plan now, not because it is the ideal, but because it forces the issue on the Democrat-controlled Senate and gives the Republicans strong issues to counter the typical scurrilous tripe the Democrats will use in an attempt to discredit fiscal responsibility once again.

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.27.12 @ 10:30AM

Oh my God, it's not a perfect Plan! We could do better! We could have it all!

"The Ryan Plan leaves the baseline untouched. It doesn't Balance the Budget til 2040. It doesn't consolidated Government Departments and Restore Power to the States."

I'm not picking on Indy. He's one of the "Good Guys" and I understand his Concerns. A lot of people feel exactly the same way. But, like a Great Man is fond of saying: "I live in Realville."

Every Journey of 10,000 miles begins with ONE STEP.

Get the picture?

There's no such thing as COMPROMISE. There's no such thing as Reaching Across The Aisle. Not with this bunch. Not now.

This is what we're up against. Ryan's plan is a 1st step, of a long journey to come. ROME wasn't Re-built in a Day, and neither will The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.

But we have to stick together.

JP| 3.27.12 @ 11:19AM

In Ryan's scheme of things, the actual budget wouldn't be balanced in decades. So much for a GOP counter.

bob alou| 3.27.12 @ 11:40AM

So under the most popular President in the last fifty years, Reagan, how many cabinet level departments were eliminated? Of course, none. Ryan may not go far enough, and I would like to see it go farther, but turn the firing squad around and start shooting out.

Jack | 3.27.12 @ 12:02PM

The day Ryan proposed his budget, the usual aging liberal relics went on the TV, and, with audacity of predictability (or is it banality), trotted out the same tired arguments on how this benefits the wealthy and harms those greatest in need. Well I'm sorry but that argument is wearing a little thin with me. We have the fattest population of poor people in the world, and when lower income people don't care to dress nicely, (you can get a decent polo and pair of khakis at any Walmart) speak proper English or do anything at all useful and productive and leech off society, running around looking and acting like a bunch of thugs and prostitutes, I agree with Juan Williams, welfare IS NOT working, and should have a work component.

cicero| 3.27.12 @ 12:43PM

The fact that there are competing plans to cut the insane spending in Washington during an election year is, in itself, encouraging. Maybe the voters will actually pay attention. Any of the competing plans is better that the runaway, unbudgeted spending we have been subjected to over the past 3 1/2 years.
As to the proposed cuts in the military budget, may I suggest that perhaps we should be looking at the number of general officers who are waiting for retirement, and who get a boost in grade the year before leaving. We are cutting the number of actual fighting forces, their equipment, and the means to get them to the battlefield, and succeed there, while we are top heavy with desk sitters who will cost a fortuen in retirement.

Steve in Ohio| 3.27.12 @ 1:46PM

Forgive me, Ronnie Reagan, but I can't help being pessimistic. The Democrats will oppose any and all entitlement reforms and the Republicans will do likewise with defense cuts. Neither party is very serious about meaningful cuts and won't be until we're on the verge of collapse. Hopefully, it won't be too late.

Bill| 3.27.12 @ 2:08PM

Chairman Paul Ryan is the most talented fiscal hawk in GOP. GOP must be united behind Ryan's Budget and pass it in the Congress. This will be the "road map" to defeat Obama in the Fall.

nathan| 3.27.12 @ 2:35PM

Besides the fact that if you're going out to 2040 you're not serious and if you're not talking about getting rid of agencies that are not supported by the Constitution you probably aren't all that serious, defense is the contentious part of this debate. (One of the problems with Reagan is that when he came in Carter had created three new cabinent positions during his administration. If they were going to be eliminated, then was the time to do it. Reagan didn't. Which means you have to look at him with more closely than conservatives like to.)

To continue. This country spends approximately as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on defense. Think about that. Add up what Russia, China, all of Europe, South America, the Middle East spends, and it doesn't equal what WE spend.

Bases. One of you, any of you make a case why pulling those troops out of South Korea would materially endanger this country. South Korea is incredibly prosperous and should given the relative GNP disparities between north and south more than be able to defend itself from the north. So someone explain why us leaving would put US at risk. The same with the bases in Japan. Japan is again incredibly wealthy. What does having bases in Japan do for US?

Europe. Europe has a GNP bigger than our own. In the aftermath of WWII when the continent lay in ruins it may have made sense to subsidize their defense. But now? If in choosing between guns and butter the Europeans want to keep paying people not to work and have wonderful vacations that Americans can't afford, fine. But someone make a case here why we should go on paying for those vacations by subsidizing their defense NOW.

Bases. We have how many bases around the world? 700/800/900? Be honest and make a case that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is absolutely vital to protecting people in Ohio. Really? Most of you don't remember the Art Buchwald but he did a marvelous column about base cutting in the US and a fictional conversation with a senator from a western state who had a fort in his state built at the time of the Indians. He was adamant that it couldn't be closed claiming that you never know when those Indians are going to rise up again. Absolutely hilarious and so on the mark. Too much of the discussion on defense spending ends up sounding like this. Just absolutely can't cut ANYTHING. Really?

Hardware. How about that marvelously expensive "target" called the litoral combat ship that went from 250 to 625 and won't last five minutes close in shore when attacked by a barrage of missiles? Start there? Or the F-35? Any of you read Aviation Week? Or other defense publications? Like the way that program has been (mis)managed?

Folks honestly if you can't find anything in the defense budget to cut you ain't looking very hard. Really.

And don't forget when we talk about bases in Korea and Europe and around the world, where does the money come from right now? Forty percent is borrowed money from China. Again make a case why we should borrow money from China to defend Europe or Korea or Japan or anyone else. Let Europe borrow their own money except of course they can't.

But what it really comes down to is this. What is our role in the world? Where do we go from here? Do we continue to play neocon imperialists? World's policeman? White man's burden? Those of you who are neocons and there's a lot on this site, then the current defense budget isn't enough. Doubling it isn't going to be enough to manage everybody else's business.

For the Pat Buchanan/American Conservative conservatives, who say yes, defend the country but the whole white man's burden stuff was nonsense from the beginning, the British didn't go out to civilize anyone they went out to exploit those people and abuse them and did just that. That no empire ever survived and ours won't either if we continue on this way, then yeah we can cut the defense budget and still defend what we need to defend.

And we need to have this discussion but have it honestly. And determine what our role in the world is going to be for the next say two decades. Because go back to what Pat said in 1999. If we continue to be in places we have no legitimate need to be, sooner or later people will come after us asymmetrically. And he was right. If we don't emmesh ourselves in other people's business, stay out of countries we don't have legitimate interests in, they're probably going to ignore us.

Let's politely and respectfully have this discussion. With the emphasis on polite and respectful and can we try to avoid the name calling just once?

Zbigniew Mazurak| 3.27.12 @ 3:27PM

Thanks for displaying your utter ignorance about defense issues. I shall respond to your pathetic screed, even though you don't deserve that.

"This country spends approximately as much as the rest of the world COMBINED on defense. Think about that. Add up what Russia, China, all of Europe, South America, the Middle East spends, and it doesn't equal what WE spend."

Not true. Not even close. The US is responsible for only 43% of global military spending, and even that is ONLY if you blindly accept the woefully understated figures for Russia, China, and other countries (which are lying through their teeth about their military spending; China's real military budget is at least 150 bn USD per year, and is set to double by 2015 by China's own admission). And that is to still say nothing of the vast PPP differences between China (or Russia) and the US. In those countries, one dollar can buy much more than in the US. When these differences are accounted for, the disparity between the US and China essentially disappears.

"Bases. One of you, any of you make a case why pulling those troops out of South Korea would materially endanger this country. South Korea is incredibly prosperous and should given the relative GNP disparities between north and south more than be able to defend itself from the north. So someone explain why us leaving would put US at risk. "

Here's why. North Korea already has an ICBM capable of reaching the US, as well as nuclear warheads it can mate to that ICBM. It is now working on a new, road-mobile, ICBM type that will also be able to reach the US. Ceding South Korea to Pyongyang would give them more territory closer to the US, a new launchpad from which to perpetrate aggression, and a large, industrialized economy to feed off, which would make North Korea even stronger and more dangerous.
South Korea cannot defend itself on its own, even if it were to triple its defense budget. That is because 1) the North Korean military is far larger; 2) NK is backed by China; 3) North Korea has something SK lacks: nuclear weapons and hundreds of ballistic missiles of all ranges to deliver them, as well as chemical munitions and missiles as well as artillery units capable of delivering them quickly in large quantities. American troops on the Korean Peninsula are the ONLY guarantee of peace there, a physical commitment to defend SK, and the only troops on the Peninsula armed with missile defense equipment (PAC-3 batteries).

Japan is wealthy on paper, but its debt equals 200% of its GDP and again, it completely lacks nuclear weapons as well as ballistic missiles. And again, US troops deployed there are not only a physical manifestation of America's defense commitment to it, they keep the peace and are equipped with BMD capabilities (which Japan is now also acquiring, albeit too slowly).

Moreover, since Japan and South Korea have such large economies and are such important trade partners of the US, any attack on them would gravely harm not only THEIR economies but also America's. It is nonsense (although it's popular among isolationists) that attacks on key allies and trade partners like them would have no repercussions for the US.

Regarding Europe, your case is a little better, since there is only one plausible threat to Europe (Russia), but even some of the bases there are highly valuable and needed for power projection.

And on net, closing military bases abroad would not save a penny. It would actually greatly INCREASE COSTS, on net, because the US would no longer have these bases for power projection and would have to rely on costly, long transportation of its troops by plane and ship - at a time when Obama is deeply cutting both plane and ship fleets (including those of amphibious ships and C-5 and C-130 airlifters).

Now, I am NOT claiming that there is no base or military installation abroad that cannot be closed; that there is nothing that can be cut from the defense budget at present, not even 1 bureaucrat; or that there is no program that cannot be closed. No one is claiming that. Those are your own straw man claims that you have produced and expect others to debunk. They are your own fabrications.

What I DO claim is that:
1) there isn't much waste left in the defense budget that can be cut (although I was able to find some, see "the Defense Reform Proposals Package - the 24th edition") after all the cuts already made;
2) there aren't many weapon programs that can be closed (but there are some, the LCS and the Global Hawk included);
3) there are some, but not many, bases abroad that the US can close (but this needs to be done holistically, on a case-by-case basis - all installations abroad need to be reviewed one by one and experts need to assess which specific ones can be closed and which cannot).

Specifically, regarding the F-35 program, while its performance to date has hardly been stellar, it is absolutely necessary. It is America's only remaining 5th generation fighterplane program (now that the F-22 program has been closed) and is necessary to replace the fleets of obsolete, unsurvivable, worn out legacy aircraft that are nearing the end of their service lives. These aircraft would not survive in modern combat environments, except benign ones.

The F-35 still offers huge value for money: 2,443 stealthy, capable fighterplanes, including hundreds capable of operating from carriers and amphibious ships. For the USMC alone, F-35s will replace 3 aircraft types (F-18s, AV-8s, an EA-6s), thus saving one billion dollars per year.

"And don't forget when we talk about bases in Korea and Europe and around the world, where does the money come from right now? Forty percent is borrowed money from China. Again make a case why we should borrow money from China to defend Europe or Korea or Japan or anyone else. "

That is a blatant lie. Not a cent of the military budget is borrowed. The US borrows money to pay for its bloated entitlement programs (which today, by themselves, constitute 63% of the total federal budget), not to fund its military, which is funded from tax revenue.

"For the Pat Buchanan/American Conservative conservatives"

ROTFL! How pathetic! Pat Buchanan and his followers, including yourself, are not conservatives at all. You guys (including Buchanan) are socially conservative LIBERALS. You (including Buchanan) are not conservative on anything, except social issues. Calling Buchanan and AmCon editors "conservatives" is insulting to every real conservative, including myself.

"who say yes, defend the country"

No, you're not saying yes to defending the country and you don't want to defend it. You want to completely gut America's defense while pretending to be fiscally responsible, and you still fetish the Isolationism idol, showing that, despite the passage of over 70 years since Pearl Harbor, you have forgotten nothing and learned nothing, just like the Bourbons of the Restoration Era.

"but the whole white man's burden stuff was nonsense from the beginning, the British didn't go out to civilize anyone they went out to exploit those people and abuse them and did just that. That no empire ever survived and ours won't either if we continue on this way"

America is NOT an empire - that is a blatant lie. America is a country which defends itself and those who are threatened by imperialist aggressors and those who cannot defend themselves. Everyday you should be thanking the Pentagon on your knees for doing so, you ungrateful chump.

"then yeah we can cut the defense budget and still defend what we need to defend."

No, we can't. Defense has already been cut more than deeply enough, while no other federal department or agency has been cut by more than a smidgen. Certain savings can be found, but they need to be reinvested in military modernization.

"Because go back to what Pat said in 1999. If we continue to be in places we have no legitimate need to be, sooner or later people will come after us asymmetrically. And he was right. If we don't emmesh ourselves in other people's business, stay out of countries we don't have legitimate interests in, they're probably going to ignore us."

No, they will not, as they refused to do so in 1913-1917 and in 1941 (and previously, in the late 18th and early 19th century, when both Britain and France refused to recognize and respect America's declared neutrality, continually violated it, and perpetrated aggression against it). Isolationism never works.

And before you even THINK about calling me a neocon: no, I am not a neocon, and I oppose war with both Iran and Syria, and opposed the war with Libya. Furthermore, I support a fast withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Son of Liberty| 3.27.12 @ 4:52PM

I'm a Tea Party member but these guys need to settle down and get a long term perspective. We can't do annything with the budget unless we win the White House and Senate in November and hold the House. We don't need to be scaring voters away from the Republican candidates. We need to show a uniified front that brings voters to our overall cause. Once we control the outcome of the budget process we can get more vigorous. All of the polls show that Americns want to get the deficit and debt under control. But they lose a lot of support when you start identifying whose ox is getting gored. We need to proceed with unitgy and caution and these guys need to settle down for now.

cicero| 3.27.12 @ 5:19PM

The argument with the military budget is not that it is spent, but how. The best spent dollars are in the National Guard, as we get more bang for our buck. These folks train, and keep up their skills so that they are there when needed. As for active duty personnel, we need only a strong core, and more NCO's than officers. What we have is a surplus of general officers who hang around for the pensions, enhansed to the max by late promotions to game the system.
What was meant by the "white mans' burden", was the realization by the Brits that they were losing money on their colonies. The colonies only paid back the investment when Britain got into its world wars, and needed the colonial troops to survive. As soon as WWII ended, the empire was dissolved, as Britain could not afford it.
Our bases around the world give us a window. Without them, we would be suprised whenever a fire starts. Rather than have to rush to a general conflagration, we are in a better position to affect the dousing of brush fires. I would suggest, however, that those prosperous countries that rely on the U.S. for survival (Korea, Japan, all of Europe),be sent a bill for the service. While they no longer have the ability to defend themselves, and will need us should war break out, if they have enough wealth to provide their citizens with 35 hour workweeks, 5 week vacations, and unlilmited benefits upon retirement at age 50, they can use some of that wealth to pay us for the favor of defense. It may even lower our taxes, provided the friendly folks in Washinton don't find a beter use for it.

POST American| 3.27.12 @ 11:27PM

-----'SUB--Mitt ROME---knee'?

------'BAR--Rockefeller' Obama?

Surely, those still with a mind or a memory under
our CHEM-trail saturated skies will be casting
blank ballots this November.

Save your energy and enthusiasm for
another push---

-------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg-------------------

Zbigniew Mazurak| 3.28.12 @ 3:08AM

One more thing: Chairman Ryan, by publishing his budget plan, has not just shown how to solve America's fiscal problems, he's also put everyone on the record.

No longer will fiscal-only-conservatives (who are not really conservatives at all) have finally dropped their "conservative" masks and have shown their true faces. They've finally shown their true colors. They've shown they are not conservatives at all, not even fiscal conservatives, but merely libertarians who are out their to specifically gut defense and don't care about the Constitution.

David Webb| 3.31.12 @ 4:57PM

As a Tea Party guy myself, I'd say let's take it easy with the circular firing squad.

Whether the Club for Growth, etc. realize this or not, it's important for there to be opposition from the right. I think there opposition is based on substance nad that's great. But, from a political positioning stand point, the opposition from the right makes Ryan's plan look "moderate" by comparison, and that gives it a better chance of gaining traction. In fact it is moderate in a lot of ways, but Obama's strategy will be to paint is at a "far right wing" and radical plan. A strong opposition from the right, will counter that argument.

Personally, I don't think it goes far enoug on it's own, but this is one very important step in the right direction. We cannot solve all the budget problems that took 80 years to create in one budget. So, let's be a little more realistic re. what is possible in one step.

ABO 2012

Tom Rogers| 4.11.12 @ 5:18PM

The basic problem with the Ryan budget is that it simply doesn't focus on getting current deficits down--what a serious proposal would do is address the immediate problem (which among other things, means not jacking with revenue) so basically that means cutting spending and doing things like cutting the regulatory burden and speeding up energy development on Federal Land, fast tracking free trade agreements etc. all things that help business, jobs and Federal revenues. Unfortunately Ryan wants some other boy to do the heavy lifting some day later, rather than sooner. The Federal government has been crowding out more and more private investment since Bush and will keep dragging the economy down till it's massively reduced.

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|111 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|58 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|53 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|12 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|25 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|15 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi

Quin Hillyer | 11:29AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator