opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh
12 Feb 2016
David Brooks and Obama's Ongoing Pant Crease

If you read The New York Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks, you might better grasp the chasm … Read More.

9 Feb 2016
Fear Not, My Secular Friends

It amuses me that certain people are convinced that Christians are angry scolds but totally miss the … Read More.

5 Feb 2016
Ted Cruz and the Body of Christ

There is a misplaced fear — shared, I'm sad to say, by many on the right — that Christian … Read More.

Liberal Opposition to Ryan Plan Is Delusional Demagoguery


It's one thing for good-faith conservative Republicans to challenge the Ryan plan from the right if they believe its cuts are too small and too slow, but these liberal attacks are something else again.

How catastrophic would the nation's fiscal condition have to be before liberals recognized its urgency? Is there any scenario under which they'd consider setting aside their partisan populism to come to the nation's rescue? Are they capable of even temporarily setting aside their redistributionist myopia long enough meaningfully to address the main drivers of the national debt?

As we know, President Obama hasn't addressed and won't address our financial problems. He has never presented a budget plan that even pretends to rein in entitlement spending or comes anywhere close to reducing our annual deficits to less than shocking numbers, much less reversing the debt picture.

When Paul Ryan presented his plan in April 2011, Obama mocked, ridiculed and demonized him and Republicans as wanting to inflict pain on the elderly and autistic, among other sympathetic groups. Yet when Obama's treasury secretary appeared before the House and the Senate, he admitted the administration's plan wholly fails to address the long-term debt issue and said only that the administration doesn't like the way Ryan's plan approaches it.

We are witnessing the end results of liberal policies on a wide variety of issues — from health care to the economy to the national debt — yet liberals can't give them up. Instead of acknowledging that their utopian dreams haven't delivered, they are shaking their fists at Republicans and conservatives, as if it were our fault that reality doesn't conform to their fantasies. They'd be much better off reading Mark Levin's "Ameritopia," but I won't hold my breath.

In The New Republic, Jonathan Cohn rails against "the stunning immorality of Paul Ryan's budget." The Washington Post's editorial board denounces "Paul Ryan's dangerous, and intentionally vague, budget plan."

Cohn, obviously not given to hyperbole, suggests that no politician would ever boast about a plan that would rob health insurance from tens of millions and "effectively eliminate the federal government except for entitlements and defense spending" — "except Paul Ryan just did."

It's not as though "tens of millions" have anything desirable with Obamacare, and whatever they do have costs multiples of what it was advertised and will also wreck the quality of our health care and greatly diminish our freedoms.

So how about instead of the cherry-picking we get a little more of the whole picture?

Cohn obviously resents any proposals that would deprive liberals of the Monopoly money they use to effectuate their social planning schemes, even though extending the status quo would guarantee national insolvency and the disastrous consequences it would bring. How do they figure government dependents would fare if that were to occur?

Instead of contributing something — anything — toward long-term solutions to the problems they largely caused, Cohn and his fellow liberal finger-pointers are scapegoating Ryan and Republicans for offering a reasonable plan to navigate us out of this mess.

The Washington Post's editors are no better. They lead with what they pretend is a self-evident truth but what is no more accurate than their Keynesian maxim that deficit spending stimulates the economy. "There is no credible path to deficit reduction," they write, "without a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases."

Sorry, but after a certain point, tax rate increases yield diminishing marginal returns for the revenue ledger, which we've seen throughout our history at both the macro (entire economy) and micro (luxury tax) levels. No matter how high they jack up the tax rates, they're not going to produce a significant fraction of the additional revenue needed to balance the budget, let alone begin to reduce the national debt.

Try a simple exercise: Compare the Bush budgets with the Obama budgets, and see the startling amount of difference economic growth makes on the generation of revenue. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

I don't believe that Ryan is proposing tax cuts primarily because he believes we pay too much in taxes. I think he did so because of the practical reality that we can't ultimately balance the budget — even with substantial spending cuts — unless we have a growing economy that yields a bigger pie to generate sufficient revenue.

The painful truth is that Ryan's plan is modest and moderate, not grandiose and extreme. If you want to criticize it, do so on the basis that the country could use an even bigger fiscal diet, not that it is too severe.

Democrats and their liberal helpmates are stoking the flames of the fire that threatens the republic; Ryan and others are driving the firetrucks and are merely debating over how big the hoses should be.

In a saner and less polarized nation, Obama would be ousted in a historic landslide in November. He very well may be.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at



4 Comments | Post Comment
David, you're at it again, what part of this is not getting through to you...The biggest chunk of the deficit is medicare, medicaid and defense, your man Bush got us into these wars to help his defense contracter friends, it will take 10 years to recover financially from what Bush and Cheney and their friends made off of the wars. Entitlements increased as did layoffs, foreclosures, and other effects of Bush's deregulation of Wall Street and his banking buddies.The mortgage collapse was a direct result of Bush's crooked buddies at AIG, Lehman, et al.
Tonight I would love to hear Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich announce that they, in order to cut the deficit, will slash medicare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment and the pentagon budget if elected. They will cut entitlements for seniors, the poor, the unemployed, and the defense industry, until the GOP can guarantee that this is what they propose, your article has no standing. No one is mentioning these cuts which are our biggest expenditures, are they? Right, tell the seniors, a huge voting block, you are cutting off their medicare, in order to give bigger tax breaks to the 1% wealthiest, and to greedy corporations, ...come on David, I'm waiting for your nominees to do this. I'll leave Fox on tonight to hear the news.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:58 PM
So if medicare and medicare are such huge chunks of the budget, why is there no talk about reforming them? Even the most staunch liberal should be able to agree that programs have to not hemorage money in order to work right. As far as defense budgets, Obama might make some small cuts, but no one has the balls to make the deep cuts needed.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:09 AM
Re: Chris McCoy
Seniors vote Chris, and their vote is huge, Medicare is untouchable, except for tweaking it, like the doughnut hole, and that took Olympian eforts to make that change. If you take away peoples food and shelter, they will revolt. Wars costs big bucks, and the defense contracters who contribute big bucks to both parties, make big bucks. Those three areas are the biggest part of the budget and defecit and they are, except for tweaking, completely untouchable. Cut Grandma's Medicare and watch her scream...same thing with Medicaid, cut the Pentagon budget and we're all going to be speaking Arabic.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:02 PM
Bloom, sadly what you said is very true. No one wants to put Grandma on the street, but at the same time if these programs are not reformed, they will stop helping people altogether down the road. Both parties cling to their sacred cows and refuse to come to the bargining table for the good of the country.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:13 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Limbaugh
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016
David Harsanyi
David HarsanyiUpdated 12 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 12 Feb 2016

22 Oct 2012 Mr. President, Why Won't You Help Us Avert National Bankruptcy?

31 Jan 2007 Hillary's Understandable Contradictions

9 Feb 2016 Fear Not, My Secular Friends