Paul Ryan, Our Last Best Hope for a Truly True Catholic in the White House

Every worthless parasite in Congress that supports screwing our troops–yet again–should face the choice of having every penny they have made beyond their salary of office summarily confiscated and put into a fund for disabled vets, or being sent immediately to Afghanistan to clean latrines and sweep mine fields in their bare feet.  Give them one minute to volunteer.  If they have not done so, imprison them for life, for treason.  Start with Paul Ryan and Patty Murray.

Andrew Bacevich, a soldier with more honor in his little finger than a hypocritical plutocrat like Paul Ryan has in his entire body, discusses how the one percent who command the vast majority of the nation’s wealth (for whom Ryan is the dutiful Grima Wormtongue) exploit, abuse and crap on the 1 percent who suffer, bleed, and die for the nation in our wars of empire abroad.

The spectacle of treating the odious Ryan as though he was Aquinas to Ayn Rand’s Aristotle has yet again borne the perfectly predictable fruit of injustice, to the surprise and amazement of the conservative anti-charism of discernment. This man, who used his dad’s SSI death benefits to go to school so he could join the tapeworm Ruling Class and deny those benefits to others–all while preaching the gospel of Ayn Rand (who likewise hypocritically sucked from the tit of the state while preaching absolute individualistic contempt for the weak)–has divvied up the world into “Makers and Takers”. And yet no one is more of a Taker than he: screwing troops whose boots he is not worthy untie out of their just wages and benefits (yet again) while continuing to keep his snout in the public trough.

The only thing inaccurate about this is that he is not a RINO.  He is doing what the GOP, in tandem with the Dems, have been doing for years: screwing the troops, sending them into needless war, abandoning them to homelessness and a staggering rate of mental illness, family destruction, suicide and poverty.  Because it’s not left vs. right: It’s our parasitic Ruling Class vs. the rest of us.  Send him to Afghanistan with Murray to read Atlas Shrugged to Murray while she licks toilets clean. Make them mop up the blood. Or confiscate their money and give it to disabled vets and send them to prison for life for treason.

A year ago, I was being lectured that this parasite was Aquinas to Rand’s Aristotle, that it was a sin against Almighty God to refuse to vote for him, and that I was, in the colorful expression of John Zmirak, “spilling my vote upon the ground” to refuse to back this man’s painfully obvious social grasping and contempt for the lower orders as he was trampling them and ditching his prolife credentials on his way to the top.

No regrets.  This guy is poster boy for why reducing the entire faith to “opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world” is a betrayal of both the fullness of the Faith and of any hope of a sane civic order. Next time, stop wasting energy barking at people to get with the program and eat the crap sandwich and instead nominate candidates who do not inspire loathing.

"Mark, some time back you posted to the effect that no other 'civilized' country had ..."

Gun Cult Renews Commitment to Lies ..."
"Wow, 100%. I wonder what scale she uses to measure such an extraordinary faithfulness score."

Kristine Franklin’s new Hello and Welcome! ..."
"I think part of what is wrong with American politics is that our founders combined ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Not sure if i agree with this. I think this desire for a king highly ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rock
  • Elmwood

    War is evil, perhaps necessary at times, but evil. We shouldn’t idolize it through worship of our giant industrial military–keep us safe–and–freedom–complex. Pretty simple, when you have all those expensive weapons, you better use them so that you can keep building more and more weapons.

    All of this is done at the expense of the innocent lives lost during a war, which are mostly completely unacceptable, and at the expense of our soldiers, who have their benefits cut because of the cost of war.

    • chezami

      It is not worship of the MI complex to say that troops should not be treated like shit.

      • Elmwood

        No not at all, I was trying to say that this “idolizing of war” has paradoxically (or not paradoxically) harmed our soldiers financially. We spend so much money on weapons and war that we can’t pay our troops.

  • First they came for the government worker,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a government worker.

    Then they came for the unions,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t in a union.

    Then they came for the minimum wage worker,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a minimum wage worker.

    Then they came for me, a veteran
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

  • peggy

    I do not agree w/Paul Ryan on this at all. It is shameful, I don’t think he’s any Catholic savior.

    So, where do you Mark get these ideas such as “last great hope for a truly true Catholic in the White House”? Who is thinking this?

    • chezami

      I was told times without number during the last election that Ryan was a Real Catholic and that I was obligated to vote for Romney so that Ryan would succeed him with his truly true Catholic Randianism.

      • Ryan Ellis

        who told you that again?

  • Chesire11

    Yup, I think you hit the nail on the head, the definitive (political) struggle in this country isn’t right v. left, but between the 1% and the rest of us, and this is just one manifestation of that.

  • JonSc

    It strikes me that this is bad policy, one meant to spare defense contractors any harm. But just so we are clear, this is about retirement, not disability payments. This is a change in the cost of living adjustment, not a cut. The argument is not if people should get retirement benefits or if those benefits should automatically go up each year, it is how fast they should go up. I wonder how many here heaping invective on Ryan have a COLA on their retirement benefits, including Mr. Shea. I sure don’t. AGain, I think this is both bad policy and bad politics, but it hardly seems Christian to be calling someone “parasitic,” a “Grima Wormtongue” and, horrors, he used his dead father’s SSI to…get this…go to college….all because he believes that the growth of retirement benefits for those retired military people under the age of 62 should increase at a slower pace. Please Mr. Shea, while your at why not insult his mother or discuss how you’d like to do to Paul Ryan what Martin Bashir wanted to do to Sara Palin. I mean, Paul Ryan is probably barely human, huh? Maybe you could threaten his children while your at it. Just in case no one gets it, I also think this is bad I and I agree with Bacevich. But jees, to hurl these kind of insults because someone thinks a government program (yes, a laudable one) should grow at a slower pace seems beyond reason and, yes, un-Christiain.

    • Stu

      Then cut all COLAs on retirement benefits the same to include Congress and Social Security. Why sacrifice the military who earn their pension?

      • Ryan Ellis

        actually, the ryan-murray bill does something very much like this. all federal civilian employees hired after the new year will have to contribute an additional 1.3 percent of their salary toward their defined benefit pension.

        • Stu

          Wrong post.

          • Ryan Ellis

            citation? i’m not saying you’re wrong, just that i haven’t read that. i’d like to know for my own purposes.

  • The Next to Last Samurai

    That was a good and righteous rant, Mark. Bless you.

  • Obpoet

    Would any true Catholic want to live in the White House?

  • Scotty

    Any of those vets joining Obama on his half-month $4,000,000 holiday vacation in Hawaii? Anyone? Didn’t think so.

  • Daniel Nichols

    Dang. Vintage Shea. Get ’em Mark.

  • $2346491

    Pension benefits need to get under control. I’m sorry, but this needs to happen. Perhaps, there can be a way to split the benefits from those retiring early because of injuries and those who aren’t, but the military cannot be a “sacred cow.” Frankly, I think that this is overwrought. Most of the kids being killed on the battlefield aren’t going to be receiving benefits. An eighteen year old PFC probably isn’t going to be in the military long enough to even qualify for these benefits. Lots of the guys qualifying will be the top brass who will be able to get good jobs with military contractors along with their pensions.
    And since we are so overwrought about this, are we going to start shrieking about Paul Ryan killing granny when he points out that Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed? Why not just write the Democrats ads for them?

    • Elmwood

      There are lots of entitlements in the military that should be cut before raiding pensions: 100s of military bases/installations in Europe come to mind.

      • $2346491

        Pension entitlements are more of an issue because they just keep growing and growing. Discretionary spending is a small portion of the budget.

        • Elmwood

          Your missing the point, you don’t cut pensions before you look to cut costs elsewhere that are unnecessary. Our bloating insane defense budget could be easily cut in 1/2.

          They increased defense spending under this budget.

          • Ryan Ellis

            agreed on reducing defense spending. but this is yes/and. defense programming spending is too much. defense pension benefits are probably more generous than we can afford.

            • Elmwood

              The levels of material and human resources that are wasted with our military complex is evil because it is depriving resources that at a minimum could be used in developing nations under poverty. How many destroyed islands and craters were necessary to test weapons designed to kill innocent people indiscriminately? How many millions/billions spent for evil weapons and wars?

              Why is it that the only thing our ruling elites can agree to cut is incomes of the middle class? If cuts were fair and across the board, it is easy to accept, because it shows solidarity, a concept absolutely foreign to the stupid GOP.

              • Ryan Ellis

                you people need to keep in mind that it was very likely murray–not ryan–who asked for the military pension cuts.

                by definition, both sides get something in a compromise.

                • Stu

                  Well, according to AP and Politico it was Ryan’s idea. And Murray is beginning to back away from it.

                  Regardless, he owns it now.

              • Ryan Ellis

                the COLA haircut applies to all working age veterans. how does this not carry out the solidarity principle you’ve advanced here?

                • Elmwood

                  Because it isn’t fair to cut middle class salaries AND increase overall defense spending, which mostly benefits defense contractors who make millions on selling weapons and wars that we don’t need.

                  Plus, it’s objectively wrong to spend as much as we do on weapons and wars. To say otherwise is like trying to defend the coal or whaling industry at this point.

          • $2346491

            I don’t think that our defense budget is bloated, especially since we are still at war. I do think that some of the European bases should be closed. However, the main drivers of our budget are mandatory spending – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and government pensions. Government pensions are in the process of bankrupting the states. (IL has a huge issue with this.) It isn’t as big a problem on the federal level (because Medicare is going to bankrupt the country instead), but still needs to be dealt with.

    • Stu

      Then change the law for those coming into the service now, not those who have already completed their service.

      • Ryan Ellis

        that’s a fair point. as i say above, there is a certain social contract injustice going on here. but that’s what happens when a pension is not an owned defined contribution account.

    • LSUStatman

      The problem with taking this out of the military retirement is that it reduces the buying power of that retirement relative to the growth of inflation. So, each year the veteran the value of the benefit is shrinking.

      When I joined the military, I was promised that if I advanced and stayed in 20 years, I would get half of my base pay and free healthcare. I am now retired, and I have to pay to have Tricare. Additionally, Tricare is a tertiary payer, so if I have any other insurance, then I lose the Tricare payment. So, the healthcare promise has already been broken. Now the pension promise is being diluted.
      Yes, retirees are working age, but those of us who have to get out at 20 years often have struggles finding good jobs. My retirement, my salary and my wife’s salary combined are less than the pay I got on active duty. But because I had not gotten a specific promotion, I was forced out into this lousy economy.

  • Ryan Ellis

    I’m coming at this as a budget expert who knows more about the Ryan-Murray budget deal than all but about 100 people in the world.

    You make no mention here about the $31 billion in higher defense spending in 2014 and 2015 that was also part of this deal.

    You make no mention of the fact that the pension at age 62 is “plussed-up” to what it would have been with a full COLA, and then gets a full COLA from there.

    You make no mention of the fact that there are thousands of ruling class defense contractors who get this pension and also get nice jobs at Iron Triangle contractor firms.

    You make no mention of the fact that this provision doesn’t take effect for two years, giving Congress plenty of time to tweak it.

    Finally, the conventional wisdom is that the HASC and SASC committees will revise this in the next couple of years. This was as much about forcing those committees to reform the military pension program as anything else. They have a savings target, and now they have a couple of years to come up with a better way to skin the cat. I vote for clawing back the pension from high-income, second-career veterans and actually increasing it for lower-income veterans while achieving the same deficit savings.

    • Stu

      Why should a military pension, which is earned, be means tested? The presence of a second career is moot.

      • Ryan Ellis

        Because we can’t afford every promise we’ve made, and the poor have first claim on those promises.

        • Stu


          How much money do you make a year?

          • Ryan Ellis

            a hell of a lot more than a poor person does.

            simple solution to this military pension thing:

            1. freeze the pension (i.e., no COLA) for veterans making more than $100,000 in other income

            2. double the pension (i.e,, 100% replacement of wages) for veterans making less than $25,000 or so in other income

            (phase this in for those between these two levels)

            3. achieve the same deficit savings as before

            we should be taking care of poor and working class veterans as we fix this pension cut. and we should maintain the same deficit savings as before.

            • Stu

              You didn’t answer my question. Instead you moved on to making judgment calls on how much is too much for a military veteran.

              How much do you make? Let’s analyze if it’s too much and then work to adjust it accordingly.

              BTW, you never served did you?

              • Ryan Ellis

                never served. i am a confirmed coward. if i was born in the vietnam generation, the world would have had an extra priest.

                i am not going to tell you my income, because that’s none of your business. but it is the government’s business if the government is sending me a payment check.

                are you saying you think that military pensions, as a matter of fairness or principle, should never be means tested? do you believe that about other government transfer programs like medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, etc.?

                • Stu

                  You are a coward. All to happy to make judgment calls about the incomes of veterans while hiding your own income.

                  And indeed, a military pension shouldn’t be means tested. It was earned through sacrifice, something you know nothing about.

                  And one does not have a vocation to the priesthood if their sole aim is to avoid something else.

                  Your performance here isn’t one I would show Grover. It doesn’t reflect well on his organization.

                  • Ryan Ellis

                    wow, can i get a moderator in here?

                    seriously, i don’t know what your objection is to means testing, especially if it’s used to increase the pension amounts of people who sacrificed just as much but didn’t land that second-career job at boeing or lockheed.

                    what do you, disco stu, have against increasing military pensions for working class vets?

                    • Stu

                      What do you have against veterans keeping the pensions they earned by living up to their part of the agreement? Why do you want to renege on such a promise to people who pledged to die for their country? Sure you are a coward, but what to have against those that are not?

                      How about we begin taxing all income over 100,000 at a rate of 90% and give that money to all working class people? You should love that plan. Well, until it affects you.

                    • Ryan Ellis

                      i have nothing against veterans keeping their pension, presuming we can afford to pay it. if we cannot, i think we should re-prioritize the pension to help those veterans that most need it.

                      you remind me of some of those know-nothings who sometimes hold up signs that say “keep the government out of my medicare.” people don’t have a right to a check from the government, and affluent people have even less of a right. i’m not going to defend an unfettered pension right for a defense contractor making $200,000 per year.

                      the fact is, reducing promised benefits for the rich (and increasing them for the poor) is a far better solution to deficit reduction than raising taxes. if you raised the top few tax rates to 90% (as you propose above), people would simply stop working beyond that $100,000 level.

                      even worse, you would be raising the business tax rate paid by 25 million LLCs, partnerships, sole props and S-corporations. the economy would totally tank.

                    • Stu

                      The fact that you see a military pension as some manner of handout makes you the know-nothing.

                      And my proposal wasn’t serious. It was meant to demonstrate that when it came to something that would affect you, you would have all manner of reasons to oppose it based upon unintended consequences. Just like your goofy scheme would as well.

                      I have to honestly say that I had a rather neutral opinion of Norquist before coming across you. I saw him as just someone with a reasonable cause even if I disagreed with him on some details. But now I believe that he and his organization are just a bunch folks looking out for themselves at the expense of others. Probably more than one coward serving in their ranks.

                    • Ryan Ellis

                      i’m really not sure how a military pension is any different than any other pension.

                      where would you cut spending instead, just out of curiosity?

                    • Stu

                      Start by killing the JSF and LCS. Replacements for the holes these programs have created would have to be filled but it can be done instead with an evolutionary approach instead of the “transformational” big budget procurements.

                      And again, if you can’t understand how a military pension is different, then you need to go make some acquaintances in the military ranks and see what their life is all about. Learn about the sacrifice they have made all to serve you.

                    • Ryan Ellis

                      i’m sorry, do we still have a draft? because what you say only makes sense if the people involved didn’t sign up voluntarily. do i have to thank everyone for everything they do? police officers, for example, protect me a lot more directly than people in the military. nurses and doctors protect me more than a serviceman does. are they in your protected class, too?

                      a defined benefit pension is not a property right. there is a moral right for someone to get it if that’s what they signed up for. i’m sympathetic to having it apply only to new recruits. but you would have to really juice up the cuts to accommodate this.

                      to your substantive point, i have no idea what those acronyms mean. what are they, and how much would be saved by eliminating them?

                    • Stu

                      I’m sorry, do you actually believe in living up to agreements or only those that are convenient to you?

                      And of course you don’t know what those acronyms mean because you are way out of your league in discussing the military and its costs. You have no credibility on this.

                      The ATR stock continues to drop.

                    • Ryan Ellis

                      for all i know, you made up those acronyms. the fact that they can’t be ascertained easily tells me they don’t add up to much in budget savings.

                      if you bothered to read what I’ve been writing all over this comment board, you will see that i’m very sympathetic to the social contract argument you’re making here.

                      but let’s not kid ourselves–a government defined benefit pension is not a right, nor is it property. it’s a fiat. the king’s gold can stop flowing when the king wants. happens all the time.

                    • Stu

                      for all i know,

                      Which isn’t much. If you had any knowledge of current military spending then you would know exactly what I am talking about. Do yourself a favor. Go get smart on the military before you open your mouth again.

                    • Ryan Ellis

                      i’m learning now, from you. what do those acronyms mean, and how much would eliminating them save?

                      i’m all for cutting spending in DOD and all over the government, incidentally.

                    • Elmwood

                      The big difference with military service is that you do not have the freedom to say “no” like you do with all civilian jobs. You take an oath and commit to following orders for better or worse. Or you go to prison.

                    • Marthe Lépine

                      A military pension is something that has been earned, and it is a right, not a handout. That’s where the difference is.

                    • LSUStatman

                      A military pension is different because we ask those men and women into horrible conditions for the wars this country decides to fight, often at risk of life and limb. Even the top generals had to work up from lower ranks in the officer corps, so they have done so as well.
                      My sister is a Brig General in the Army, who has deployed to the sandbox 7 times, losing over 3 years of her life with her family. And you want to take away part of her future compensation because she might be talented enough to lead any logistics company in the world? That’s a fine “Thank You”, isn’t it?

                • merkn

                  No he is saying that having worked for a promised benefit a serviceman is entitled by right to have his contract honored. i say cut weapons systems congressional pensions staffs anyhting before breaking our word to servicemen. It is ignoble unbecoming and disgracefull. Another way to look at it is its their money. They earned it it is not ours any longer. It is a sin to cheat a workman of his wages.

                  • Ryan Ellis

                    as i’ve said several times now, there is a social contract injustice going on here. but let’s not kid ourselves–what the government giveth, the government can taketh away. there was no property right to this pension.

                • Marthe Lépine

                  Eh! A pension is not an ordinary transfer program. It is a comitment made to people at the time they were employed/enlisted, and is a part of a contract. As such, a pension has been earned, and therefore it is due, not “granted”.

        • Dan C

          We can make good on these obligations. Taxes need to be raised then and we need to excise from polite companybthose who led us irresponsibly to cut taxes and raise spending in order to “drown the government in the bathtub.”

          • Stu

            Well played on the quote.

          • Ryan Ellis

            taxes have historically been 18 percent of GDP.

            our current tax system is rigged to raise 19 percent of GDP, substantially more.

            how high would you like it to go? and why is raising taxes a better solution than cutting government benefits to six figure households, as I would prefer?

        • Dan C

          The consequences of drownng the government in the bathtub isn’t some faceless monster who is destroyed. Its your neighbors and this is who are suffering at this monumentally irresponsible plan.

          • Ryan Ellis

            See my replacement plan in the comments here. I want to increase the pension for lower income veterans, and cut it further for defense contractor veterans.

      • 2RC2

        Military pensions are not being means-tested. The Ryan-Murray agreement 1) does not touch pensions for military personnel of actual retirement age (62 and above I think) or who are disabled or sick. 2) What it does do is say that pensions for able-bodied people who retire at like 38 (having joined at 18 and served for 20 years) and are going on to second careers will have their pension payments grow at 1% under the inflation rate. This very mild cut is restored as soon as they actually retire. So Mark is freaking out about people with a second career and second income not getting a full cost of living increase until they actually retire. Military pensions have grown by more than 40% since 2001. Like it or don’t like it, it’s not a draconian move and Paul Ryan in no way deserved the looking-into-his-soul denunciation he just got.

        • Stu

          The pension was earned. Whether one chooses to to have a job after retirement is their business not some politician or bureaucrat.

          It’s a BS move that breaks faith with the understanding we had when we signed up. And for Ryan it’s a weasel move.

          • 2RC2

            The pension payments themselves are untouched. Everyone gets what they’re promised. What is touched is the rate of increase. Slightly slower increases are not draconian cuts!

            • chezami

              Doesn’t matter if it’s not “draconian”. It matters thatt it’s (yet another) cut. From somebody who has not cut his own pay.

            • Stu

              Indeed. It’s a way to dilute what was earned.

              It’s a break of faith by those who haven’t served against those that did.

    • Dan C

      1. How is an increase in defense spending relevant other than a random attempt at an applause line for Red Staters and Republicans?

      2. I have problems with the manner in which we have addressed the re-arrangement of social bargains with all government employees: teachers, scientists, etc. including soldiers. It seems that there is little shame in re-arranging certain guarantees for individuals at any time in their career, including after its done if they were once a civil servant or member of the military.

      3. Is future employment a violation of the original deal to be a soldier or work as a government employee?

      We can afford these things. We just may have to sacrifice a PlayStation.

      • Ryan Ellis

        1. Shea is lamenting that we’re cutting off funds for the military. I think it’s relevant to point out that the same law that cuts the military in one area increases it in another.

        2. You’re making a very good argument for moving toward defined contribution pensions like 401(k) plans, where it’s your money and it can never be taken away. By their nature, defined benefit plans are at the whim of the legislators.

        3. There is no doubt a type of social contract injustice going on here. It’s certainly not the spending cut I would have gone to.

        We can’t afford everything.

        • Dan C

          American luxury spending is excessive, our communal infrastructure and delivering on our promises is weak due to in no small part the evil instructions and education delivered to an American electorate who sucked up the parsimoniousness from varied partisans.

          The right wistfully discusses the good ol days without a remembrance of that economic structure of far higher taxes and less economic choice. A dozen facebook memes were posted to my news feed over the past day attesting to the quality of those simpler times, times which were accompanied by higher taxes and less luxury wealth.

          In short, we can make good on our responsibilities, and need to re-right and re-stabilize our communities. This requires consistently supporting our responsibilities.

          If the nation made bad choices for, say 35 years by spending too much on the military and wars and cutting taxes at the same time, well that needs to change and we need to make good on the obligations we made.

          We also need to stop supporting those deceptive groups who brought us to this point.

          • Ryan Ellis

            well, we’ve made a lot more in promises on government spending than we can expect to raise in taxes. the debt that would be incurred from the difference is simply not sustainable, and the tax increases required would kill the economy.

            that means you have to cut back on some of these promises.

            i’m with you on the neocon adventuring. but that isn’t enough. we also need to ask high income people like me to forego some of what we’ve been promised. the alternative is to cut spending for everyone, which would be unjust (since a poor person would have to suffer instead of just me, who can handle it).

            • Dan C

              What about the tax cutting and the willful desire to deliberately bring us to the point in which we cannot afford our promises? Let me be direct, I call out ATR for this plan.

              The intent was to cheat people, humans, your neighbors, out of the plans they earned. This was foreseeable and desired.

              I read ATR propaganda for close to 20 years now.

              Congrats. You won. Everyone should be thanking you,

              • Ryan Ellis

                Taxes are coming in at about 19 percent of GDP (or they very soon will).

                The historical trend (last 50 years or so) has been closer to about 18 percent of GDP.

                How have we succeeded in starving the beast, exactly? That extra percentage point of GDP is about $170 billion per year (today’s dollars) in excess federal tax revenue.

        • HornOrSilk

          I don’t see Mark lamenting the “cutting off of funds for the military.” I see him lamenting the broken promises to the soldiers, who are themselves often poor and broken down from their work.

          I’m a pacifist, but not an absolutist in regards the military. I see there is a need for one, and honorable treatment for soldiers, since most come to the profession either out of desperate need to find a job they can do and barely make a living as a soldier (esp when retired from soldiering), or out of care and concern for their nation (however perverted leaders might be in that nation). They need to be treated with respect.

          The same problem I have with cutting pensions for teachers, firefighters, police, post officer employees, I have with cutting off the pension of the soldiers.

          This is not about military spending. I think we can and should work to cut military spending. It can be done. But this is not the way.

  • Merengue

    Ryan Ellis, I appreciate your serenity, logic, and prudence.

    • Ryan Ellis

      when paul ryan is viciously smeared, i’ll be there. especially when mark, like donny in The Big Lebowski, is way out of his element. he simply doesn’t have the expertise or competence here, and it shows.

  • Andy

    A note to Stu – i don’t always agree with your views – my personal bias, however, you did a wonderful job trying to speak to someone who has only one view of the world – based on “starving the beast” at all costs. “But now I believe that he and his organization are just a bunch folks looking out for themselves at the expense of others.” This for me sums the entire focus of ATR – thank you and I congratulate you.

    • Ryan Ellis

      *cough* taxes at 19 percent of GDP *cough*

      Do you understand why, by definition, we’re not starving any beast right now?

      • Andy

        “Cough” – a terribly clever response, about what I would expect from a person who starts with the premise I know more than ay be 100 people about a topic. “Starving the beast” is your phrase not mine, but the beast you are starving, driven by your version of greed, are people on fixed incomes, people who because of the groups you purport to represent are trapped in low income/no income jobs, people who rely on services – that is who you are starving. But why should you care you make a hell of lot more than people who are poor?
        A look at history shows that what you claim you want doesn’t work very well. But again, what is history to someone who makes the money you seem to intimate that you do. Wen we had growth taxes were higher, and the “evil government” invested taxes in infrastructure, research, and the like.
        Stu called you a coward for not serving. I see you as a coward for not being able to look beyond your mammon- filled life.