Ryan on sequestration: White House needs to “put up or shut up”

posted at 5:21 pm on August 23, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Out on the campaign trail, President Obama is constantly intoning that Republicans’ failure to end the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy — a.k.a., to hike taxes on people making more than $250k a year — means that Republicans are perfectly content with cuts to education, cuts to defense, cuts to public-sector jobs, etcetera, as long as they can continue to protect their precious millionaires and billionaires. Or something. It seems that Republicans’ desire to continue to Bush-era tax rates for everyone is ostensibly responsible for the upcoming sequestration cuts, for our humongous national deficit… basically, it seems, for any shortfall in the federal budget. Which is weird, since President Obama’s proposed tax hike wouldn’t amount to all that much revenue anyway and would come at the cost of economic growth. But I digress.

President Obama continues to blame Republicans and their darned obstructionist Congress for their persistent calls for tax cuts, which he claims is a big part of what’s going to harm the Pentagon, and for agreeing to defense cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling in the first place — but Paul Ryan is having none of it, reports CBS:

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday condemned President Obama in his harshest terms yet for forcing mandatory defense cuts into last summer’s agreement to raise the debt ceiling, saying that Congress has told the president to “put up or shut up” by disclosing how the cuts would be implemented.

Ryan was referring to the Sequestration Transparency Act, a bill that passed both the House and Senate by a bipartisan vote in late July. The president signed it earlier this month, though administration officials have said Congress should devote its energy to avoiding the so-called looming “fiscal cliff” instead of simply probing for details on the consequences.

“The president needs to show us how he plans on putting this in place if he is not going to help us pass legislation preventing it in the first place, so we’re now waiting for that answer,” Ryan said during a roundtable in Fayetteville, home to Fort Bragg.

Ryan also noted that, in the event of a Romney-Ryan White House, their administration would work to undo the automatic defense cuts “retroactively“:

“I don’t want to get too technical, but in January our intention is, if we don’t fix it in the lame duck, is to fix it retroactively once a new session of Congress takes place,” Ryan said in response to a question from an attendee at the defense roundtable.

“Now, we believe that we have a procedural way in the Senate to advance that legislation very quickly and get it to the next president of the United States — who I believe is going to be Mitt Romney — to pass it into law and retroactively prevent that sequester from taking place in January,” Ryan continued. “And that’s our plan. And hopefully, knowing that that’s our plan, that will make it easier for us to get this done in the lame duck, before it takes place in January in the first place.”

Good. I’ve long maintained that it’s pretty darned inexcusable and cowardly that we’re hacking at the military’s budget before even attempting to reform the undeniably-unsustainable entitlement programs that consume that vast majority of our budget and are the long-term drivers of our debt. I agree with Ryan that “the primary responsibility of the federal government first and foremost is a strong national defense” — in my opinion, that’s one of the few areas with which the federal government is supposed to occupy itself, as per its Constitutionally-imposed limits. You know, the Constitution? That old chestnut?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Unless Gary Johnson surges before it’s too late nothing is going to be cut. Both parties are promising to increase the debt year after year for decades to some. Gary Johnson is the only one who has indicated he will cut spending and balance the budget.

FloatingRock on August 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Repeat after me, fellow HotGas members: “There is no candidate but Saint Johnson of the Wacky Tobaccy, and FloatingRock is his prophet.”

Benedict Nelson on August 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

i chuckle when i hear the term “attack” dog in reference to ryan.

raised as a pup on the mother’s milk of the elitists. never voted against his party. always went with the flow.

the only fighting ryan does is when he’s up against a defenseless animal. then he’s all tiger.

you guys saw him secretly trying to schmooze with clinton behind the scenes.

can’t you guys just see paul ryan and obama sitting next to each other in a gym, comparing pecs, after a px90 workout.

renalin on August 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

“undeniably-unsustainable entitlement programs that consume that vast majority of our budget”

Those programs don’t just consume the majority of the budget, they consume every last cent of tax revenue. All of it.

Every legitimate (and illegitimate) function of government is paid for with borrowed funds, because welfare and entitlement (BIRM) transfer payments consume all of our tax revenue.

Troll Feeder on August 23, 2012 at 9:30 PM

can’t you guys just see paul ryan and obama sitting next to each other in a gym, comparing pecs, after a px90 workout.

renalin on August 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I doubt it if “Mom jeans” has the stones to pull his shirt off next to Ryan.

Tenwheeler on August 23, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I doubt it if “Mom jeans” has the stones to pull his shirt off next to Ryan.

Tenwheeler on August 23, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Oh, I would bet that he would. While giving Ryan a funny look and a wink.

VegasRick on August 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Paul Ryan makes me think this country can be great again, and I really, really love that about him.

ccrosby on August 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM

What an pathetic joke! Paul Ryan inexcusably voted to raise the debt ceiling and cut defense spending, which was outrage, but now he’s condemning Obama for something he himself supported?

Paul Ryan is just another hypocritical snake-oil peddler fighting a fraudulent partisan battle while the powers that be scheme in secret about what they’re going to shove down America’s throat after the election during the lame duck, regardless of which of the “two parties” wins the election.

FloatingRock on August 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

+1000

rjl1999 on August 23, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Wow the Mike Church/Ronulans have invaded!

Defenestratus on August 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Wow the Mike Church/Ronulans have invaded!

Defenestratus on August 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM

They’re just warming for the floor battle in Tampa. /sarc

socalcon on August 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Would that be the same Obama who had a deal with the House Speaker in reforming the tax code, generating $800 BILLION in new revenue – and who, after agreeing, came back and demanded $400 BILLION more?

GarandFan on August 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM

FloatingRock on August 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM

renalin on August 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

You do realize that Gary is not gonna call after your one-night stand, right?

But cheer up, boys! Maybe ONE of you can still dance cheek to cheek with him at the Blue Oyster after the convention….

…when he loses

…AGAIN.

BlaxPac on August 23, 2012 at 11:51 PM

That is part of the con. They have no intention of cutting spending for real, they’ve only talked about cutting spending on Democrat priorities, but they aren’t going to use the savings to reduce the deficit, they are going to spend the money on Republican priorities instead. That’s what the Paul Ryan plan does. Romney/Ryan are still generational thieves just like the Democrats are, they just have different cronies. You have been duped by Fox News and other partisan media outlets, Paul Ryan’s budget in reality does not cut a penny of real spending, it only reduces the rate that spending increases each year, a little. In other words it’s hocus-pokus, a ruse, a con. Both parties and a complacent/complicit media are in on it because they like big-gov too and they get paid millions by both parties for political advertisements.

FloatingRock on August 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

This may be too pithy, but I’m really glad I’m not you.

ccrosby on August 24, 2012 at 12:08 AM

“But Ron Paul delegates are like, only bound during the FIRST vote man, so we’re going to abstain, and then the REVOLution will begin for real. We’re gonna take the Repbulican party by stor — wait, is that a bong? Can I have a hit or two?”

RationalIcthus on August 24, 2012 at 2:39 AM

It’s sad to me that both parties push this issue as an either or subject. As a fiscal conservative I think cuts need to be made to both entitlements and the military. Yes folks, you can find just as much waste and theft in the military budget as in any other section of our government’s budget.

We spend an exorbitant amount of money on our military and we should be looking for ways to cut down on costs much like should have been done with health care and wasn’t by our POS POTUS.

Benaiah on August 24, 2012 at 8:49 AM

We are not in normal circumstances, but if there were a co operative Senate leader and a truly concerned President…he is not, he likes the Pentagon cuts and the devastation…A truly concerned President would say how he would like to make the cuts at the Pentagon so as to hurt the fewest people and keep the nation secure. He could ask Panetta to do it with him.

Then he would negotiate those things with the House. They would put in what republicans like, and Harry Reid would put the bill into the Senate for a vote. That would be bipartisanship.

But he won’t open his mouth and say what he would do because he doesn’t care about Pentagon cuts. He wants it to happen and will blame republicans, because he is a person with a mean streak he will laugh and enjoy the sequestration. He really does not care who in the military loses their job or is laid off from the related industries.

Fleuries on August 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

renalin on August 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

An “attack dog” is one that will attack another person or their position purely as an effort to marginalize them regardless of the merits of their position.

Ryan is after the truth and what works, not demagoguery. So you’re right, he’s not an attack dog.

michaelthomas on August 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

General question:

Has anyone heard anybody else speaking in support of Obama (not including his papparazzi)?

In the workplace, at home, overheard in restaurants, on the street, etc….?

I don’t.

So who the hell is the ~50% who show up in the polls?

Its another case of reality not matching the reports.

BobMbx on August 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM

General question:

Has anyone heard anybody else speaking in support of Obama (not including his papparazzi)?

In the workplace, at home, overheard in restaurants, on the street, etc….?

I don’t.

So who the hell is the ~50% who show up in the polls?

Its another case of reality not matching the reports.

BobMbx on August 24, 2012 at 12:18 PM

5 cars in my apartment complex have recently updated their Obama/Biden bumper stickers, as well as their coexist and other liberal progressive paraphanalia.

I will tell you this, when those in my office talk politics, they have a tremendously negative view of Romney and a generally favorable veiw of Ryan, which of course I reverse to a dislike of Ryan as quickly as possible.

Most say they will still vote Republican, but they directly say it with the caveate of holding their noses, or some other way to indicate it is not their prefered action.

If Romney wins and fails to deliver a government that has increased its Conservative nature and is headed even more conservative, I think you can kiss a large chunk of the Republican supporters support goodbye, either for good (think new party) or at least for a generation, along with their children approaching the party with a significant distrust.

You all like to say that this is an important election. It is, but not for the reason you imagine its import.

astonerii on August 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I will tell you this, when those in my office talk politics, they have a tremendously negative view of Romney and a generally favorable veiw of Ryan, which of course I reverse to a dislike of Ryan as quickly as possible.

astonerii on August 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Why in the world are you doing that????

Mary in LA on August 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

If Romney wins and fails to deliver a government that has increased its Conservative nature and is headed even more conservative, I think you can kiss a large chunk of the Republican supporters support goodbye, either for good (think new party) or at least for a generation, along with their children approaching the party with a significant distrust.

[...]

astonerii on August 24, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Now there I agree with you.

Mary in LA on August 24, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Why in the world are you doing that????

Mary in LA on August 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Simple, slavery is an evil. Ryan plans to use the slave labor of future generations of Americans to pay for the evil Social Security and Medicare programs dreamed up by progressives, who knew that making Americans reliant on government largess was the way to make progressive policy immune to repeal. As you all say, if we do not get rid of Obamacare before it goes into effect, there is no way to get rid of it after… Well, I for one say, great.

The generation retiring today is the generation that made these screw ups, and I say they should be the ones to pay for it, with the failure of their nation. I am done supporting the idea that we can fix the nation outside of crisis. It needs the crisis and the sacrifice that ends up being the larger part of that crisis to finally grow the hell up!

Either fix, or pay for it yourselves.

astonerii on August 24, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2