Paul Ryan's new budget, discussed here on NRO, puts the country on a path toward a balanced budget in ten years. The editors of NRO call Ryan's budget a "broad vision for the fiscal future of the United States [and] an important step in the right direction if it were to become law."
Now, I love Paul Ryan. I think he's a great public servant in the true sense of the term. But, come on.
Between Fort Sumter and Appomattox was four years. Between Pearl Harbor and the surrender on the U.S.S Missouri was less than that. Between JFK's promise and Neil Armstrong's footprints was a little over eight years. Heck, from John the Baptist to the Cross, Jesus Christ's ministry was only a little over three years!
But our best and brightest and boldest can't get us to a balanced budget inside of a decade? Really?
And what's really sad is that the same NRO article actually hints at a path that would balance the budget much sooner:
What Ryan’s budget does not contain, it should be emphasized, is spending cuts. The difference between Ryan’s balanced budget and Obama’s crippling deficits is this: Ryan proposes that federal spending be allowed to grow at 3.4 percent a year rather than the 5 percent rate it is expected to hit otherwise. That is the most important context for this debate: For a difference of 1.6 percentage points in the growth of federal spending, we get a balanced budget in ten years instead of a headlong rush into a debt crisis on the Greco-Spanish model.
And what worries me, as the father of three, is "what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born."