I'd rather see us cut the billions we're spending on these wars -- $1.2 TRillion so far and counting.

Federal outlays in FY2011 for just Veterans Administration and military pensions: $147 billion.

That's $441 for every resident in the USA, or $1764 for a family of four. Every year, except it is rising rapidly.

Taxpayers, hold onto your wallets.

First, I'm as much of a deficit hawk as you'll meet. $14 trillion in debt is unsustainable.

But I think the GOP and Paul Ryan hurt their credibility when using pseudo-economics.

Their projections are worthless. Economics are dynamic and the idea of straight line growth is pure fiction.

Here's what they're drawing their data from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

Note that this straight-line growth started when Bush was president.

The rapid rise of course is both a combination of too much spending (primarily on wars we shouldn't be fighting and misguided TARP and Stimulus packages) and economic decline (shrinking of the GDP).

We've seen this rise before (Reagan and Bush I) and then retrenchment under the boom years of Clinton and early Bush II.

That's dynamic economics at work.

Events like 9/11 change a lot and frustrate any idea of making straight line predictions.

I've very little to argue with in the thrust of Paul's proposals, but his chart is pure and utter bullshit.

And I agree with the comment above: Cut spending on our ill-conceived foreign adventures -- we could save $600 billion by bringing troops home from foreign lands.

How The Military Can Make You A Millionaire
Ric Edelman

Spring 2004

How can you get the military to give you a $1,167,448 bonus? It's simple: All you have to do is retire with an annual pension of $35,000 at age 43 after 20 years of service. Assuming you receive your pension until age 85, $1,167,448 is how much your military pension is worth in the civilian world.

We all know military benefits are pretty good. You get mess hall and PX privileges. You can take advantage of on-base housing and living subsidies, including medical care. And you get a pension - an incredible pension! In fact, it's so good that few people in civilian positions ever get this kind of opportunity. So let's examine the numbers behind a military pension.

Retiring servicemen and women can expect to get 50 percent of their base pay from their pensions after completing 20 years of service. Let's use the example of an O4 whose monthly base pay, as of January 2003, was $3,311.10. With an annual three percent cost of living adjustment (COLA), that same officer can expect to earn $5,980 a month in 20 years, or $71,762 a year.

Assume this soldier retires at age 43 with 20 years of service but with no increase in rank. Also assume that this soldier can also expect an annual three percent COLA after he or she retires. In the civilian world, you would need to have saved $1,167,448 to receive a $35,000 pension from age 43 to age 85, and to get a mere three percent increase on that pension money every year. That, in short, is how much a military pension is worth."

See the above--and that's all 2004 stats.

Yes, we need to cut the budget--social welfare prgrams and militaryt spending.

The weenies in the Repubclican Party are wedded to huge and growing military outlays, and USDA lard. Rural spending in general. They are frauds, fakes and phonies.

The weenies in the Repubclican Party are wedded to huge and growing military outlays, and USDA lard. Rural spending in general. They are frauds, fakes and phonies.

Yes, and? I don't see your solution in any of this. The only other alternative is the Democrat plan of increasing spending, and then increasing taxes, and then wondering why the manufacturing we still have moves off-shore.

Oh, and your insights into military pensions forgot something: more than a few apply for other government jobs (like with the Post Office), and accrue another government pension.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/gop-budget-ditches-cbo-to-claim-health-care-repeal-will-reduce-the-deficit.php?ref=fpa#

Here is a summary of Federal 2010 finances.

$ 2,200  Federal Tax Revenue (billions)
$ 1,300  Borrowing (the deficit)
—————
$ 3,500  Total Spending
$     0  Total Saving

$14,500  Entire economy (GDP)
  15.2%  Taxes as % of Economy
   9.0%  Borrowing as % of Economy
  24.2%  Total spending as % of Economy

What if (say) Bob's family budget operated like the government, in proportion? That gives a feeling for our situation:

$50,000  What Bob can spend from his income
$29,900  Bob borrows this
—————
$79,900  Bob's spends it all
      60% more than Bob's income
$  1,400  The GOP cut in proportion

The proposed GOP cut in spending of $61 billion is just 1.8%. For Bob, it would be $1,400.

The federal government has made big promises, far above what it will collect in taxes at current rates.

$75,100 billion ($75.1 trillion) is the amount of a fund which would pay for the unfunded part of promised entitlement programs over the next 75 years, if available today and invested at 3% interest. Of course, there is no such fund, so meeting those promises would require immediately increasing tax revenues by 76%  to pay off that "mortgage", or those promises will be broken.

Don't take comfort from the 75 year time frame. We are already falling short, being made up by huge borrowings (the deficit). The result of the 75 year analysis is that things will steadily become worse.

Collecting 76%  more in taxes might cause or deepen unemployment. Or, increasing tax rates might actually decrease tax revenues if people decided to earn less and pay less. Or, it may be impossible to convince younger people to give up their savings in exchange for the right to charge their children high taxes in turn. I think the promises will be broken.

This problem is huge. The retirees of today and in the future have paid into Social Security thinking that their "insurance premium" will fund part of their retirement. Actually, all of the cash (real resources) has been spent. What remains is only the promise to now tax the non-retired to pay for the retired, at much higher rates. That is not what people thought Social Security would deliver to them.

Promises for Medicare and Medicaid are worse; they are bigger and just as unfunded. What is more kind: to face reality now, or to default on these promises at the last minute?

Unfunded Promises (billions)
 7,900  Social Security
22,800  Medicare
35,300  Medicaid
 9,100  Federal Debt

75,100  Total Unfunded Promises (billions)
       above curent tax collections

 2,100  Federal Pensions
 3,700  Veteran Benefits
 1,600  All Other
—————
 7,400  In current budgets (billions)

$82,500  Total Promises (billions)

The unfunded promises of $75,100 billion are 34 times the $2,200 billion in taxes estimated to be collected in accounting year 2010 (the year ending Nov 30, 2011). There is nothing saved or set aside to satisfy those promises, and there is no tax revenue now collected or saved to pay those amounts now and during the next 75 years; that is the meaning of "unfunded".

Bob's unfunded promises (in proportion) would be $1,736,00 increasing at 3% yearly, to be paid off in 75 years, over and above Bob's current, spendable (and already spent) income of $50,000 (current tax collections).

EasyOpinions -> Family Budget

So Howard, are you saying we don't need to make any changes to entitlement programs? I'm not inclined to think those graphs are pure bullshit when I consider the giant wave of Baby Boomers - most of whom have little to no savings of their own - hitting the benefit age for Social Security and Medicare. And what about Medicaid, for the poor - we already have record numbers of people on food stamps and receiving unemployment benefits. I certainly don't see the number of poor people shrinking. How can Medicaid payments go down?

I completely agree with you (and, irritatingly, with BOTU) about the spending on wars. But total military spending is about 19% of the total. I agree we end the wars, and how many military bases do we have scattered around the world? I saw a number last week that was upwards of 700. Why so many? Why any, for that matter? We could make big cuts in military spending if we just limited it to defense. (Meaning, we have to stop using such a wide and sloppy definition of what "defense" is!)

But even after that, and getting rid of the useless crap like agricultural subsidies, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Energy, HUD, and a slew of others, I don't see any way to fix this thing without entitlement reform. That is a problem, because most Americans are ignorant and think foreign aid makes up 27% of the budget. (It's really less than 1%.) Or they think we can make all the necessary fixes if we just deal with fraud and waste.

That simply isn't the case. Our beloved entitlements are the giant sucking sound you hear coming from the corner, the giant gorilla in the room, and most people haven't even figured that out yet. And even if you could somehow club them over the head with it, people are terrified at the thought of true self-reliance. Like I said, the Boomers haven't saved any money - and they sure as hell don't want to keep working. I am afraid that when faced with the choice, the American people will collectively close their eyes, hold their noses, and choose more printing and borrowing.

End game: Total currency collapse. Economic pain that can no longer be papered over.

I agree with howard botu and lisa. Let's add their ideas for more cuts on top of Congressman's Ryan proposal. We have a long way to go and the democrats as, usual, only want to spend and tax more. Cut spending! Now!

One part of the budget that will never be cut, and, in fact, that keeps growing, is the National Security State. The TSA's budget alone for fiscal 2012 is $8.1 Billion. And that doesn't, of course, include all the other rights-shredding, soul-sucking crap that the rest of the security apparatus spends money on. But hey, look on the bright side -- more employment in a down economy -- TSA molester, DHS spy, or soldier of fortune -- jobs, jobs, jobs! The benefits of a permanent state of war!

Actually, I think the time has come to end all public pensions, for civilians, military, and state and local workers, including fire and police.

Such systems inevitably become time-bombs.

We now spend $147 billion a year on military pensions and the VA.

It all sounds nice when you set up pensions. Passing the costs down the line.

Better would to pay a higher rate, and wipe out all pensions and the VA.

I'm not saying anything one way or another about cutting entitlement programs.

Depending on the details, I might agree.

I think all cuts need to be rationally considered.

I'm merely going after the bogus pseudo economic science of Paul's chart and his ridiculous claim of the computer blowing up trying to do the calculation.

I'm fed up with politicians treating voters like idiots.

What is wrong with you people? VA expenses are a reasonable burden on the taxpayer. Those wounded soldiers lost limbs in wars that provided jobs for war industries and capital for war profiteers. Tasty, tasty capital.

You can't say no to profits for American companies even at the expense of lives, limbs, and taxes taken from the citizens.

You just can't.

Gog, I grant your point in connection with disabled veterans. I'd go further and extend it to any soldier who saw actual combat duty.

But there are an awful lot of DoD retirees who never touched a gun once they got out of basic. You know what a double dipper is, right? You enlist at 21, put in your 20 years, and retire from the military at 41 with a full pension. Then you get a federal civilian job, put in 20 years there, and now you have *two* full pensions. And then you find some sucker of a contractor who will fully vest you after five years, and you have *three* pensions. You'll make more as a retiree than you ever made while you were working!

The bigger point I want to make is to reinforce PJ's main point: any plan that doesn't address entitlements is, by definition, not serious. Totally eliminating the DoD would not cover the existing deficit, much less the future obligations. We all know that there are promises that will have to be reneged on. PJ and I have discussed here before that we have done our retirement planning assuming that we will never see a dime of Social Security, and right now that assumption looks like a near certainty. Ryan's plan may not be perfect, and there is certainly room for negotiation, but it's the first and so far only plan offered by anyone that is big enough in scope and addresses the right problem.

I think I just came up with a new idea....
tax government benefits at a much higher rate.

Gov. retiree: I should be getting $10,000/month but the check is only for $1000.
Helpline: You are forgetting about the 90% special tax. Thanx for your service. Goodbye.

Cousin Dave, I am currently looking into what a deferred lifetime annuity would cost me. (At least I'm pretty sure that's what the name of the product I'm looking at is called.) I may not be able to do anything to fix our entitlement problem, but I can at least not be PART of the problem.

The product I'm looking into would be deferred, in the sense that payments will be deferred until I'm either 70 or 75 years old (I'm comparing prices on those two ages), and lifetime, in the sense that it's guaranteed to pay out a fixed amount until I croak - so I will not outlive my money.

I want $2,000 a month in today's dollars, so I want it indexed with inflation - if $2,000 in today's dollars (or whatever currency we have, at that point) is $5,000 a month in thirty years, then I want it to pay out that much. I'm looking at providing a Social Security-like policy for myself in my old age, and not counting on the government to take care of me.

I don't know what I will be able to do to help push the wagon, but at least I'm going to try to keep myself from riding in it. I'll share what I find out, as far as costs are concerned. Annoyingly, I have a feeling that the money I've already paid into Social Security would probably cover it.

"But there are an awful lot of DoD retirees who never touched a gun once they got out of basic."

You know, this is one of those times I wish I could draft you.

Yeah, your neighbor's kid spends his life in a submarine. Since he didn't shoot at anybody, tough luck for him, huh?

You don't know what he does. You just know he doesn't carry a gun, and you've seen a gun on TV, and they're baaaad, so then the poor schmo rates a benny, right?

That just looks like penis envy on your part.
Do you realize that you're endorsing pain and suffering as criteria for getting a pension?

Damn. This is one of those times I wish I could just snap my fingers and make the military vanish, just so I can watch babblers whine for protection and die by the thousands reinventing the science and infrastructure of defense.

Hey, the police on your town have pensions. If they don't carry a pistol on patrol, then nothing for them, right?

Making pensions go away is not a magic solution.

Note that regular military are taxable, but VA disability pensions aren't (www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/waiver-of-pay)

And using 2004 stats is a bullshit ploy (www.militaryhandbooks.com/?page_id=63 and www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/military-retired-pay-). Basically they changed the system that if you achieved E-7 at 19 years, you have to spend three years in rank to get the 50% (or 35% of your base pay -- more on that in a moment.) About 5-7% of the active duty military make that rank. E-8 and E-9 is Congressionally limited to 2% and 1% respectively.

They also changed the rules in 1986 for base pay at retirement. Prior to 1986 you could get 50% of your base pay at 20 years. After 1986 that became 35% at 20 years and 50% at 25 years. You were capped at 75% at 30 years. Thirty years was (and is the max) without a waiver. (The have since lifted the 75% cap -- but to make it to 30+ years is rare.)

So what started happening in 2006, is a 20 year retiree is getting less. Using 2004 stats would cover me if I had made it to 20. But the amount of people they RIFed, or the brass found any excuse to get rid of in Clinton's peace time force gutted a lot of us who were in the middle.

So take some of the stats with a grain of salt. Or as Paul Harvey used to say "And that's the rest of the story."

Rad, that was completely uncalled for, and you totally mis-read what I wrote. I originally learned that from my dad, who was in fact drafted, and by his own description never touched a gun after basic. (He wasn't a career guy either.) He told me about guys who had spent their 20 years flying a desk, but demanded the same bennies as the guys were survived Omaha Beach. Now somebody's got to fly the desk, but it's hard to argue that someone who does so should get combat pay. To me, that's not only undeserving, but also disrespectful of the guys who did in fact survive Omaha Beach.

Look, we could cut 100% of the military budget tomorrow and it won't make a fucking difference.

You read that correctly. The military is a drop in the bucket. In way less than 50 years, non-discretionary spending (i.e. entitlements -- welfare, soc. sec., medicare, gov. worker pensions) is going to exceed 100% of US GDP.

What happens when you don't make enough to pay the bills?

That's right, YOU ARE FUCKED.

So you can beat your cock like it owes you money over the prospect of finally demilitarizing the US. It isn't going to make a dent in the budget problem, it's just going to make the world a much more dangerous place.

Let's bring back the draft. You can take your chances on a shooting war. This time, ladies can play too. I made $128.50 a month to start, but I didn't get sent to Vietnam. Not all my peers were as lucky. Some of them came back dead.

OK, I'm being sarcastic, but you ought to seriously consider the alternatives before bashing those who do the job you will not.

Or maybe you think cutting the military will stop the next 9/11. Peace through weakness hasn't worked yet, but who knows? I haven't needed it yet, but I still buckle my seat belt.

To Brian but also people who think the defense budget is untouchable,

I don't have statistics but I won't claim to "know for a fact" what I am about to say is true. To say that the defense budget being cut would not dramatically fix the budget is, in short, dumb. I believe the percentage of our fiscal budget is about 22% on defense. If that is not a significant portion then I literally don't know what is.

In addition, those benefits that need to be cut also include military benefits. So really you could expand that number even further.

The question is not if we should cut these programs but how. If we cut too much from the defense budget then entire industries such as aerospace engineering, arms, and vehicle production will hurt. There is no question that spending needs to be curtailed on the retirement packages as well. The population is growing exponentially and living longer. Both factors are stressing our budget.

The question is why, despite knowing this, would we attack the bargaining rights of police, fire, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. These are some of the lowest paying jobs and police and fire cant strike nor would they. Teachers do an indispensable job as well. Why do military personnel get more credit for the job they did than those who keep the country going while they are abroad fighting? Each industry is as much a part of the corpus of the country as any other. A body cannot function without a nervous system, or a GI tract, or a vascular system. It is only analogous that we need every part to make a whole country, from military to janitors, and ceos to elected officials.

I happen to be in law enforcement and a volunteer firefighter/emt. Is that less honorable than military because I didn't go abroad to risk my life? I don't think less of teachers or assembly line workers because they don't carry a gun. In fact, I praise them because they do a job that I could never do and provide an indispensable role in my life by filling a need. I don't know where you military guys get the balls to piss on those who support you directly and indirectly every day. Maybe you can start by not demanding that you are the only ones deserving of benefits and retirement.

Wouldn't it be fair that everyone who works their whole life is entitled to a secure job and secure retirement because that is what America is, fair?

I look forward to your pinko commie hate rhetoric.

Wouldn't it be fair that everyone who works their whole life is entitled to a secure job and secure retirement because that is what America is, fair?

What a load of hogwash. No, everyone should most emphatically NOT be "entitled" to a secure job and a secure retirement just because they have worked their whole life.

Point of fact, no one on this planet has a secure job, because that's just the way things are. Waving your arms and saying we should be "entitled" to one is just saying the sky should be pink instead of blue. Irrelevant.

If you want a secure retirement, then fucking save up for one. If you work your whole life and never save anything, why should your neighbors have to pay just because you want to quit your job?

Entitlement. So easy to bestow, and so hard to take away. You sound like one of those people who still thinks you are getting money out of Social Security just because you have been paying into it your whole life. The brutal fact that the money is gone will not soak into your pointy little head until you've opened an empty mailbox for three solid months.

Reality. Fantasy. Please learn the difference.

A few things.

1. You dont get combat pay unless you are in combat.

2. Yor service term is for 2, 4, or 6yrs of an 8yr term. Even after you complete active duty you can be called up durring the rest of that 8yrs.

3. Just because you decided you want to renew your contract doenst mean then military HAS to take you.

4. Most people dont make the military a career, and those that do usually stay in longer than 20yrs.

5. Every cafiteria in america sucks, even those on a base - also rembemr most, if not ALL military personel are not paid more then civillians in simmilar feilds(where simmilar fields apply) And they've never had a union to force the issue like techers and police.

As a side note I'd like to mention AZ police unions just spent millions on a comercial campaign urging citizen to call the goveoners office and demand she "save" police pensions. What they dont tell you is what you are really asking for is that the govener save police from haveing to contribute 10% of their pay to their own pensions - they currently contribute nothing.

6. Sure the PX, you can usually avod local taxes, but the selection sucks, and back in the eighties - my dad, a marine who wound up with nerve damage on the left side of his body and the use of one eye, would use his benifits to shop at base, but even with the 'saving' it was only cost effective if we went shopping once everyother month.

7. You want to cut veterans benifits thats fine, assumeing you start with those just joining the service and they are aware that should they lose an amr, or a leg, or parts of their internal organs and can no longer physically perform many tasks that most people take for granted, that they will be kciked out on the street with no support or recompence then fine - but watch how quickley they stop signing up to defend you form the people who want you dead.

@Doug -

Other than the fact that everything you said is wrong, there's not much to attack.

America, like life, is not fair. However it is equitable. You get out what you put in.

What public service employee unions do is make sure that you get out way more than you put in. Teachers, cops, firemen - they are all negotiating with the people who set their salary, but there's no upper limit on what they can demand, because the people who PAY the salary don't have a say.

And if defense is 22% of the budget, and the budget exceeds receipts by 100%, we've still got an overage of 50% or so if we cut the entire defense budget. So it's not enough. And there's not enough headroom in the economy to absorb the kind of taxes it would take to balance the budget.

Get it through your unionized head - there isn't enough money to pay you what you think you deserve any more. There just isn't.

Whining about how unfair it is, or how expensive the military is won't change that one incontrovertible fact.

The very right-wing Cato Institute recommended cutting military outlays in half--and that was before military outlays doubled, in response to 24 Saudi Arabians armed with box-cutters who did the 9/11 thing that caused the federal fat machine to double military outlays.

We can whack military outlays by 75 percent, and not suffer the slightest threat of invasion.

As for guys with box-cutters, no aircraft carriers can stop that. Our borders are wide-open, and maybe they should be. Millions cross from Mexico every year.

I am surprised we have not had more terrorist attacks--and since 18,000 Americans get shot dead by guns every year, and 30,000 die in auto accidents, I am not concerned if we lose a few hundred to terrorists. It is a minor threat we can deal with easily. In fact, by hyping it, we probably cause more of it. Terrorism is just an ugly PR stunt.

The Global War on Terror is like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs--wars designed to take money from taxpayers forever, on flimsy premises.

BOTU. Yes, and? The government, at every level, spends too much. We are deeply in debt and it is just getting deeper. The thing to do is cut spending, not dithering around like the democrats and most of all the President. Knock off the yes, but bullshit that you keep spouting.

Lisa Simeone starts the thread with typical democrat silliness. I'd rather Minnesota had weather like California.

BTOU read starship troopers, pay careful atention to the only spech given by the charechter od Sgt Zim

Let me repost this:

$ 2,200  Federal Tax Revenue (billions)
$ 1,300  Borrowing (the deficit)
—————
$ 3,500  Total Spending

Also: $14,300 existing debt.

Out of the total spending, the military makes up around 20%. So that's $700. Say we cut it by half. That saves us $350. It helps, but doesn't get us anywhere near the $1,300 we need to cut, just in order to stop borrowing every year.

Given these numbers, I would say we need to cut spending by $1,600 in order to pay back existing debt. $14.3 trillion is too high a number and leaves us extremely vulnerable to rises in interest rates. Paying down the debt to the tune of $300 per year, we still would not even pay down one trillion of debt in three years. So that is a slow repayment plan.

So, I'm fine with getting out of the wars, closing military bases around the world, and just maintaining enough military strength to protect our own country. But we have $1,600 of spending to cut, and we've only gotten up to $350, by reducing the military by half. We still have $1,250 to go. There is no way to do it without significant entitlement reform.

Entitlements make up 60% of spending, or $2,100. Now we need to cut THAT in half, and then we'd be getting somewhere. Still have $200 to make up somewhere, but we're getting into the ballpark.

But do you have any idea how people would SCREAM if we cut entitlements in half?

The solution: QE to infinity!!!

PJ - the left's answer is always to "tax the rich", but as has been shown elsewhere, seizing the assets of all of the billionaires in the US wouldn't even pay off this years deficit.

We need to cut the federal budget by at least 50% ACROSS THE BOARD, AND NOW.

What part of THERE IS NO FUCKING MONEY LEFT is beyond this government's (admittedly limited) comprehension?

Long story short, they're going to keep on the same path until the only options left are default, hyperinflation, or both.

At which point there will be open fighting in the streets as pretty much everything becomes impossible to get.

Hey, you know, the President just told Republicans looking to make cuts to "grow up".

What an idiot. Spending is the adult move?

"...and since 18,000 Americans get shot dead by guns every year, and 30,000 die in auto accidents, I am not concerned if we lose a few hundred to terrorists."
Is there no end to what you don't know? That's not risk analysis in any way.

It appears that Ryan assumes that unemployment will dip to 2.8 percent in his projections, and that housing will stage a heroic boom to match the last one.

Man, I like that! Boomtimes, baby, boomtimes!

Utopian visions? Oh, why not.

This is also from the Ryan "budget>'

"America remains a nation at war. Brave men and women in uniform are engaged with a fierce enemy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters of the ongoing global war on terrorism. This budget reflects a commitment to support this nation’s troops and to prioritize national security. For Fiscal Year 2012, this committee assumes
$553.1 billion in budgetary authority for the regular operations of the Department of Defense. It also assumes full funding for the modernization of the infrastructure that builds and maintains the nation’s nuclear weapons systems. In addition, this budget includes $117.8 billion for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Is this straight from the Pentagon's PR shop, but written by an intern?

What part of THERE IS NO FUCKING MONEY LEFT is beyond this government's (admittedly limited) comprehension?

It's not beyond the government's comprehension, it's beyond the PEOPLE's comprehension, which is a much bigger problem.

Well, then the people are going to get what they asked for. And they're gonna get it GOOD AND HARD.

There's no preparing for what's to come. All that remains is to pray that you survive it.

The question is why, despite knowing this, would we attack the bargaining rights of police, fire, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. These are some of the lowest paying jobs and police and fire cant strike nor would they. Teachers do an indispensable job as well. Why do military personnel get more credit for the job they did than those who keep the country going while they are abroad fighting? Each industry is as much a part of the corpus of the country as any other. A body cannot function without a nervous system, or a GI tract, or a vascular system. It is only analogous that we need every part to make a whole country, from military to janitors, and ceos to elected officials.

I'm going to break this paragraph (and some sentences as well) to really get the points across for the socialists among us.

The question is why, despite knowing this, would we attack the bargaining rights of police, fire, teachers, sanitation workers, etc.

I would like name a single job, including the "etc." that is a named responsibility in the United States Constitution.

These are some of the lowest paying jobs

Again in which reality are you living? The teacher's pay in most places is the same median income for any similar profession in the private sector. And the private sector has to pay their own retirement program. In addition -- why is the sanitation department a public entity? If you are talking sewer and water -- they have been successfully privatized in many municipalities. And what is wrong with sewer tanks? Garbage -- that should be private anyway.

and police and fire cant strike nor would they.

Can you honestly say you've never heard of Blue Flu?

Teachers do an indispensable job as well.

Again -- where does education appear in the the U.S. Constitution? Education may be in your state's Constitution -- but why do I have to give one cent to your state for the education of your children in <your state> when I live in my state? For that matter why am I, as a childless male bachelor, financially responsible for the education of your or anyone else's spawn?

Why do military personnel get more credit for the job they did than those who keep the country going while they are abroad fighting?

The U.S. President Woodrow Wilson first proclaimed an Armistice Day [Veterans Day] for November 11, 1919. In proclaiming the holiday, he said

Each industry is as much a part of the corpus of the country as any other. A body cannot function without a nervous system, or a GI tract, or a vascular system. It is only analogous that we need every part to make a whole country, from military to janitors, and CEOs to elected officials.

The first Labor Day in the United States was observed on August 26, 1878, in Boston, by the Central Labor Union of New York

Notice the difference in dates?

"But I think the GOP and Paul Ryan hurt their credibility when using pseudo-economics"

So your argument is that because economic models can't be 100% accurate, we should ignore them entirely? That doesn't make sense.

"Wouldn't it be fair that everyone who works their whole life is entitled to a secure job and secure retirement because that is what America is"

We tried the idea of forcing people to work for the benefit of others, it's called 'slavery' and it's as wrong now as it was 200 years ago.