Posted on 12/23/2013 7:23:58 AM PST by bestintxas
House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has doubled down on his move to cut pensions for military veterans in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday.
In the op-ed, Ryan opens up by highlighting the CBO estimate that the deal he cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) would result in at least $20 billion in deficit reduction. “The Bipartisan Budget Act that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and I drafted will soon become law,” Ryan wrote. “We think it's a small step toward fiscal discipline in Washington. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years by over $20 billion. And unlike current law, it will provide much-needed relief to our already strained defense budget.”
As Breitbart News has reported, Ryan’s and Murray’s budget deal does not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deal raises the deficit by at least $15.5 billion because of a series of gimmicks that Ryan and Murray employed in the accounting of the deal -- namely, double counting of savings like the tactic which was employed in Obamacare, and the failure to include an estimate of the interest on the borrowed money for the first couple of years of increased spending. These are only a few among a series of other misleading statements Ryan has made about the deal.
The rest of Ryan’s op-ed is devoted to defending his decision to cut $6 billion worth of military pensions. "One part of the bill has become particularly controversial: the reduction in cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for working-age military retirees,” Ryan wrote. “The federal government has no greater obligation than to keep the American people safe and we must take care of the
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I can’t understand why Ryan wants to be the public face of this.
You’re parsing words. Increasing your federal income tax would not actually be a cut in your pay, but you’d still have less money.
All of these people keep telling us that it is about the public service, now let them prove it.
The Army War College is considering removing pictures of Jackson and Lee.
Better take some blood pressure medicine before clicking on the link.
>> To keep the deficit from going UP with a socialist WH and Senate is not any easy task.
Yeah, that Paul Ryan, he’s a courageous fighter for the status quo. And his government career.
Too bad he’s hanging US out to dry.
If you want more of something, vote for it.
Where is the incentive for the stupid party to hold any resemblance of conservatism?
There isn't because of foolish ignorant sheep that think an (R) after someone's name will somehow make them different than if they had a (D) printed after their name.
Wow, such a winning strategy - look at how well that strategy worked preventing cloture votes for funding 0care.
Hell, look at how well that strategy worked in the lead up to that idiot voting for 0care out of committee and into the House for a general vote when the rats had a majority/control in all three branches.
The very root of the problem with the stupid party is the party doesn't have any core values or principles - and neither does its constituency.
Bohner, Cantor, McCain, Cornyn, Ryan, Romney and nearly all the rest are spineless wishy-washy pansies that would sell their soul for a vote. And worse, they expect you to sell give up your soul to vote for them; so long as idiots vote for wretched bastards like this - they will continue to act accordingly.
The above mentioned can't even be called "RINO" anymore. They aren't "in name only," this is what the Republican Party has by and large become - it is the Rand Pauls and the Ted Cruzes that have become the "RINO." What has been sown, is now available for reaping.
You can either continue to sow weeds with the stupid party, or plant a new crop.
Crap like this is the reason why the Congress has such a low approval rating. Unfortunately, the state controlled “media” has got the buffoons convinced that it’s because they haven’t passed amnesty for the illegal alien invaders.
Try again - this is just not a logical argument. Reducing how fast something will grow by setting against a more reasonable benchmark is not a cut. If they CUT 3% from what you're getting, THAT's a cut. Saying we're not going to grow it at the rate of the salary/wage inflation of the general population is not a cut.
The “Compromise” plan put forward by Ryan and Murray was not based on any fiscal concepts. It was based on providing money to the Democrat base. When they announced this “Compromise”, they said that the six billion dollars taken from the retired Veterans would be going to HEADSTART and Education. That’s why we are angry. They are taking money from us to provide pay off money to the Democrats. Ryan is lying when he talks about putting this money back into the Defense budget. Every Democrat Senator voted for this. Why would they vote for anything that was just about moving money around in the Defense budget?
“How many TRILLIONS have we spent fighting this war”
There,fixed it.
Unfortunately, Ryan, you started from a larger step. And you did it on the backs of veterans, for which there can be no excuse.
Anyone who thinks it is somehow okayy to reduce the cost of living adjustments for working age military retirees, does not understand who we are talking about. Or if they do, as I said, the are completely wrong-headed and out of touch.
For those suggesting such a travesty, I suggest that they just try the following simple exepriment to help them understand exactly what they are doing.
Experiment for Representatives and Senators:
Each of Senator and Representative who believes working age military retirees should have their cost of living adjustments be cut should volutarily sign up with the US Armny, US Marines, or some other branch of US military service. They should then voluntarily go into harm's way fighting the enemies of this nation, particularly those who would have no qualms in slaughtering you by hacking your head off in front of a live camera.
Then, while so engaged in that fight, step on, or drive over an IED device that literally blows your arms and/or legs off. wSurvive that horrific experience, and then come home to live the rest of your life with those disabilities...in a verteran's administration that looks for every way possible to deny you care and rehabilitation over the long term.
Then have some pencil necked geeks in Washington DC tell them that they somehow "owe" it to the country to give up their cost of living adjustments to...while those same geeks earn $150,000+ dollars a year coming up with such ideas.
Only then will they be qualified to make such a suggestion...but then, if having lived through that, they never would make such a determination in the first place on the backs of those who have already given so much.
I agree with the notion that we need across the board cuts. I’m very disappointed that sequester cuts are being undone, and on the basis of a completely unrealistic set of future cuts that will never actually happen. I’m just questioning why people give this unchallengable “military heroes” status. Is the guy who spends 20 years changing the oil on an F-16 really entitled to the COLA more than a police officer who spends those years on a beat? Sure, some military suffer serious injuries in their duties. But, when the visceral reaction to touching veteran benefits is so hysterical, it makes it hard to have a reasonable conversation. To sum up, I support cuts to every aspect of government, to reign in deficit spending. Every aspect.
because the govt absolutely positively cannot find $6 billion in waste to cut from any other programs ....
As a fellow FReeper has already pointed out, I can explain it to you, but I can’t make you understand it. With this law, will the retired Veterans receive less money than they would have? We can use any words you want to use. How about instead of “cut”, we use the phrase “Give them a good screwing over”? Is that more to your liking?
I always liked that picture. “We’re stoopid enuf to luv r kuntry. Unlike u.”
‘[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion,’ she said.
One could well argue that, contrary to the assertion quoted, Lee's purpose on that battlefield was to preserve the nation as it was originally conceived and still was understood by the South. Along with the spoils, the right to write history belongs to the victors, but there comes a point at which history must at least pay a courtesy call on the truth.
One wonders if this is merely coincidence or is this part of the Obama administration war on our military? Napolitano has defined veterans to be potential terrorists of whom we must be wary. The culture of the military has been wrenched by the new regulations concerning gays. The left regards the military as a wonderful Skinner box, a place where top down social engineering can be done by decree so much easier than trying to shape the civilian culture with all its pesky checks and balances and its Bill of Rights.
Is this part of a greater plan to neutralize the military or even co-op the military when a second American Civil War breaks out?
The Obama administration has been decapitating generals left and right, it is no surprise the generals Lee and Jackson should also be beheaded.
Now starting with military is very odd, but if you think about who the pols see everyday, it makes sense. They see the fedgov staffers and workers, not the guys in green.
It is easier to cut people you don't see.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.