Let's try to depict this graphically.
This morning I tried to distinguish between serious conservatives and non-serious conservatives. Maybe this graph will help. Non-serious conservatives, like the ones who want to shut down the government, are currently arguing with the Obama administration about making marginal cuts to that section that says domestic discretionary. In contrast, serious conservatives, like Paul Ryan, are trying to have a discussion about the other 87.7% of the government. Ryan wants to tackle Medicare and Medicaid, which both fall in that yellow section.
Let me be clear. We do not have a spending problem in our domestic discretionary budget. No, the problem is not foreign aid. No, the problem is not TARP. No, the problem is not the debt ceiling. The real problem is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But people who voted in the non-serious conservatives don't want cuts in those items, even though they want to cut government spending. So what the non-serious candidates do instead is grandstand. They make a big show about how they are willing to shut down the government over their little, tiny cuts that they want in that tiny blue sliver of the pie. And then after they shut down the government, they can go back to their constituents and talk about how they stuck it to Washington. Meanwhile, moderates flee the Democrat Party and the deficit remains the same.
I am tired of the games. And apparently so is Paul Ryan. The government is not the problem. The problem is the social welfare state, built upon the faith that the population will never age. It has aged and so now we have a huge entitlement crisis. That yellow section is only going to get bigger in the next thirty years, until it completely consumes all federal revenue.
So some of you who said that I was just adopting "liberal talking points" need to take a cold, hard look at this graph.