Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Nukes of Hazard blog / Norquist Hits Ryan on Defense Spending

August 17, 2012

Norquist Hits Ryan on Defense Spending

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Earlier this week, Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, came out against Paul Ryan’s views on defense, saying they were fiscally irresponsible.

“Other people need to lead the argument on how can conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense without wasting money,” Norquist told the Center for the National Interest.  “I wouldn’t ask Ryan to be the reformer of the Defense establishment.”

He continues: “Richard Nixon said that America’s national defense needs are set in Moscow, meaning that we wouldn’t have to spend so much if they weren’t shooting at us. The guys who followed didn’t notice that the Soviet Union disappeared.”

This does not mean that Norquist isn’t a supporter of Ryan on other issues—he most certainly is. But it’s interesting to note this difference between two of the GOP’s leaders on economic policy. Norquist’s repudiation of Ryan’s position on defense exposes an inconsistency in Ryan’s belief that we must shrink government and cut unnecessary spending. Ryan espouses this view, but when it comes to defense, he—along with many other Republicans—advocate higher defense spending and resist calls to cut fat and increase efficiency at the notoriously wasteful Pentagon.

The onus is now on the Romney-Ryan team to explain this inconsistency and detail how they would pay for $2 trillion more in defense spending over the next decade. Agree or disagree with Norquist’s extreme economic views, but at least he’s consistent.

Posted in: Nukes of Hazard blog, Security Spending

Tweets by Nukes of Hazard

Recent Posts

  • Growing number of high-security pathogen labs around world raises concerns March 17, 2023
  • Global Biosafety Fears Grow Amid Rise in Labs Handling Dangerous Pathogens March 17, 2023
  • Evolving Threats, Un-evolving Solutions: Geo-Politicization of Export Control Policy March 17, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: The Australia Group March 16, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones March 14, 2023
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency