• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Ryan Plan Prioritizes National Security

    When Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI) released the House Republican budget earlier this week, one thing was certain: It takes seriously the constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. Eschewing the Obama Administration’s call for higher taxes, the Ryan budget succeeds in restoring America’s defenses while restraining the federal government’s insatiable desire to increase taxes.

    Not surprisingly, this reality is lost on many of the more vocal critics from the left. Unwilling to acknowledge the Ryan budget’s ability to reestablish appropriate and necessary funding for the nation’s defenses while avoiding the pitfalls of higher taxes and runaway entitlement spending, some have resorted to actually labeling the Ryan plan as jeopardizing America’s national security.

    Michael Breen, vice president of the Truman National Security Project, declared that “Ryan’s plan cuts virtually every security tool in the president’s arsenal that isn’t a gun.” Breen goes on to argue that “Paul Ryan’s budget slashes the very national security tools that made America the world’s superpower in the first place.”

    Breen predicates his argument on the fact that Ryan’s budget incrementally cuts funding for projects ancillary to national defense, such as diplomacy and foreign aid. By conflating the much smaller elements of diplomacy and foreign aid, which are often associated with the projection of soft power, with the much larger elements of a robust defense mechanism capable of preserving America’s kinetic ability, he promotes a narrative that deviates from the most salient features of Ryan’s budget proposal.

    While recognizing the need for spending reductions, the Ryan plan does not allow this to be achieved at the expense of America’s national security.

    As Arthur Brooks, William Kristol, and Heritage’s Ed Feulner noted in The Wall Street Journal, “Even within the framework of a plan to reduce outlays by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, Mr. Ryan has found a way to replace $214 billion of the $487 billion in military spending reductions that are in Barack Obama’s budget.”

    Ryan’s plan also succeeds in avoiding the serious dangers associated with the process of sequestration—automatic spending cuts that, if left unresolved, would crater the defense budget and leave the nation’s security in a precarious state.

    From 1945 through 2010, defense spending as a percentage of the total federal budget averaged just under 35 percent. Today, that number floats just below 20 percent. As entitlement spending has continued on auto-pilot for the past several decades, eating away at an ever-increasing percentage of the total federal budget, spending on defense has precipitously declined.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution stipulates that Congress shall provide for the “common defense” of the nation. In attempting to forestall the catastrophic cuts to America’s defense budget that would result from the sequestration process, the Ryan plan maintains fidelity to the original intent of the Founders’ vision of the government’s responsibility to its people. Far from jeopardizing America’s national security, the Ryan plan succeeds in prioritizing the broader defense needs of the nation within the context of necessary spending reductions.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to The Ryan Plan Prioritizes National Security

    1. Bobbie says:

      Mr. Breen, not acknowledging the peoples' constitution makes most of anything you say destructive and invalid! Step aside and let real men of integrity handle the necessary measures to clean up your adolescent ignorance that you and the like minded spread across America!

      If you won't face your truth, your weakness is your own! Get out of our house!

    2. Benjamin says:

      I don't quite understand the argument you're positing here, though — if we can reduce threats and conflicts (and thus the need for military risk and expenditure) ahead of time by investing in non-kinetic programs, shouldn't we do so?

      The less drained our military the better, I'd think. Don't good diplomatic and development programs accomplish that?

      • Bobbie says:

        The constitutional duty of the American government is defense. It should be financed above all unconstitutional government acts and expenses that wrongfully exists with all unconstitutional government and costs expecting elimination at any time America's leadership weakens to contemplate America's defense financing without correcting the ongoing constitutional violations conducted by government and their unAmerican authoritative, unfair, limitless, irrational expenses.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.