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 ...
POP
(Piss On Paul)
Guess being Schumers butt boy on Amnesty has turned him...
Well Paul, I have an idea ... your cutting into money that is promised (due) the people that helped allow you to cut into their money, will be a setback and a difficult adjustment until they learned to live with the change
I propose we cut off your right hand.
You wouldn't be able to sign onto legislation very well, not in the beginning, but with time and re-adjustment, you could learn to cope.
I know it would be something missed and never expected to get back, but it would be a small step toward fiscal discipline in Washington
Now, you could save your right hand by defunding (cutting) the Attorney Generral's budget by 1/2.
for starters.
So that make poor wittle Paul a 'VICTIM', just like Obama.
NOT! 
If only life could be that simple. Vote any non-Republican candidate (libertarian, etc.) and you WILL get a Democrat win every election until the end of time. There is standing firm on perceived "principles", then there is a strategy to be in any sort of a position of power, ever, to impliment those principles. Yes, it sux. We are being laughed at huge.
Right alongside Christie, Jeb, and lots of other RINO's. Run til the end......
Did anyone think he wouldn't have to get reduction in military benefits as well as a concession?
Your twelve-year limit is far too generous. We need to limit the damage these Elitists are doing to our country and our freedom. Self-serving, amoral, power-hungry politicians need and must be sent home before 12 years of damage is done. RATs and RINOs need to order their packing boxes now.
I’m concerned that conservatives are now using the language of the Left. This is NOT a cut, but a reduction in the rate of growth. COLA has been manipulated for years, and doesn’t actually track with inflation, instead being pegged to the growth in other folks wages (among other things).
But Paul Ryan is still a RINO just in general terms based on this failure of a deal. But don’t play rhetoric games like a commie lib.
When was the last welfare benefit cut?
It is a breach of faith with those who served and by serving carried on under an agreement by the terms of which they would endure hardship and danger and even postponed present benefits not just for themselves but for their wives and kids for a benefit to be derived later-as pension. In other words, they lived up to the terms of their contract and the government now breaks it's part of the bargain. That is unfair because the government has the unilateral power to break the agreement and, so long as the government majority holds, our veterans are without recourse.
Worse, the doublecross extends not just to the kind of healthy veterans in their 40s and 50s whom Paul Ryan describes in an attempt to justify his doublecross to be in their peak work years but it applies to veterans who came back from their service missing arms, legs, the ability to walk, the ability to sleep, the ability to think normally. These capacities they have sacrificed by them because they were patriots but it was a sacrifice made while they believed in the deal.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan contrives a budget compromise which continues to compensate those who have rendered the country no service whatsoever, who are fully able-bodied both mentally and physically, and who do not work. It is immoral and it is, inevitably, bad policy.
We subsidize indolence, selfishness, dependency while we punish industry, selflessness, independence. Immoral policy, it goes without saying, is bad policy in practice. It shapes expectations, it conditions the culture, it degrades all the virtues and condones failings of character.
We have by this deal when it is consummated, and it no doubt will be consummated, in effect said to the Democrats that the entire Ponzi scheme which is the financial operation of the federal government is one that we accept in principle provided only that we can tinker at the margins and, so long as we can appear to make progress, so long as we can publicly posture and deprecate the scheme and promise to reform it, we will condone it in practice and in reality where it counts.
The entire motivation by Paul Ryan and the Republicans whom he represented in the negotiations was to secure one commitment and one commitment only, a commitment directed not at the Democrats, or even secured from the Democrats, it is a commitment directed against the base of his own political party. Paul Ryan sold out the veterans so that he could sell out The Tea Party. There will be no more government shutdowns, The Tea Party now has no leverage to impose a shutdown on the establishment wing of the Republican Party.
Take that Ted Cruz, take that wounded veterans.
I don’t believe we have to worry about Mr. Ryan being Presidential material, he gave that up when he decided to work with the Commie Pat Murray.
At the risk of drawing fire—why are cuts to veteran COLAs so offensive? We aren’t necessarily talking about people who lost a limb fighting in battle. We are talking about people who joined a volunteer service and spent a number of years providing national defense. For that, they got paid, earned our gratitude, and also are entitled to some type of retirement benefit. But, why is it so offensive to lower the annual increase in that retirement benefit? We do that willy-nilly at the state level, with respect to retired police, fire fighters, and teachers, all of who perform important functions and some of who face a danger similar to what military personnel do. Why the different reaction?
This such a BS story that even a 1st grade child can tell.
Does he want the voters to believe that in the entire bloated federal gonerment that this was the only possible place to make cuts?
Talk about STUPID statements this is on par with “If you like Medical Plan you can keep it, period”.
Maybe he is taking lessons from mac daddy about lying until it become like the truth.
It’s not going to work.
what a wuss…. thinks because he ‘works out’ that he is the be all and end all. He is as bad as O as far as I am concerned. This little twerp needs to be put in his place but a real conservative
Thanks for hurting the vets, Ryan, while keeping your benefits and salary. You stink.
oh come on… everyone knows that the dims will cut the military just because the day ends in ‘y’. RYAN is the one who sold this pile of crapola to his house buddies and tried to defend it as good for the nation
“Two things: 1) What did they put in Ryan’s water? 2) What in the heck do “they” have on that guy?”
Make it Three: When does he get a primary opponent? Come on Wisconsin, replace this quisling!
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.