Rumors of War III

"If I Wanted America To Fail"

The Road We've Travelled...Where has the Obama Administration really taken us?

ARE WE HEADED TOWARD THE CONSTITUTION OR THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO? THIS BREAKDOWN TELLS YOU

The Communist Manifesto

Considered the playbook, the framework, the founding document of Communism, it is argued that no other political volume has altered the course of history more than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s tiny yet effective blueprint for the proletariat.

Commissioned by the Communist League, Marx and Engels laid out their analysis of capitalism and class struggle while supposedly offering economic and socio-political “solutions” rooted in what they called science. While every instance of Communism attempted around the globe has since failed abysmally and without exception, proponents still cry that Marx’s inviolable political and economic theories were simply “improperly executed” and thus, if true to the Manifesto, Marxism is, in itself, “perfect.” A little known fact, however, is that these champions’ premise is based on a flawed narrative, as Karl Marx in fact falsified much of the data he used to support his untenable political and economic system. Of Marx’s flagrant disregard for the facts, British philosopher Anthony Flew wrote:

…the first and only volume of Das Kapital to be published in the lifetime of Marx was, in his own words, to demonstrate that “In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation at the opposite pole.” But by 1867, when that volume was first published, Marx had known for 15 or more years that this thesis was false.

Flew continued that Marx’s response was “merely to suppress the falsifying data.” This was manifested in the first edition of Das Kapital where “various available British statistics—about the reliability of which there was no question—were given up to 1865 or 1866, whereas those for the movement of wages stop at 1850.” In Kapital’s second edition, however, according to Flew, all subsequent runs were “brought up to date, while that of wage movements still stops at 1850.”While clearly not a “man of science,” nor one who held facts in high regard, generations of leftists take the words of Karl Marx as absolute truth, and indeed, the gospel. Below are the tenets they seek to live by, as mapped out in his “magnum opus.” So where are we?

1. Abolition of private property

The first plank of Communism is the abolishment of private property. America is certainly here in terms of eminent domain, where the state has the ability to expropriate private property “for the public good.” Per the Fifth Amendment, the government must fairly compensate a citizen in return, but lines tend to blur when the government is given the authority to assess what is “fair and just” in the first place. Regardless of whether the final sum is one agreeable to the private citizen, the property will still be confiscated with or without the owner’s consent.

Typically, land or property acquired through eminent domain is used to house public works that are intended to benefit the community such as public utilities, freeways, libraries and schools. It is a slippery slope, however.  After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the scope of eminent domain was expanded outside its traditional boundaries to include revitalizing “depressed areas.” In other words, in the spirit of gentrification or regeneration, a citizen’s private property can be seized by the government to build a sports complex, or even a shopping mall if the state deems it a public good.

Another example of government encroachment on citizens’ private property is evident in the far-reach of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) that buy mortgages on the secondary market.  If a citizen’s mortgage is held by one of these government-backed giants, Uncle Sam is entirely “too close to home.”

Interconnected is property tax. Simply, if one is subject to property tax, then the land or property being taxed doesn’t actually belong to the “owner.” Fall behind on these payments and the government will  seize a citizen’s home, business or land, regardless of whether his or her mortgage is paid in full.

Homes are not the only area subject to government encroachment, however. In fact, Uncle Sam owns roughly 650 million acres of land across the 50 states — with its highest ownership stake (85%) in Nevada.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has the authority to seize private property during “emergency” situations.

2. Heavy progressive income tax

This particular tenet needs no introduction, nor example. America now holds the world record for highest corporate tax rate, surpassing even Japan. This is a crucial plank of the Manifesto, as it ensures that nary a high income earner will remain standing and everyone may subsist in equal mediocrity or (worse).

Ironically, Communists bang on incessantly about “equality” when in fact a flat-tax is arguably the fairest system of all and one that would, by design, ensure “from each according to his abilities, toeach according to his needs.” If a 10% flat tax were implemented, then 10% of a $5,000 income would amount to far less than 10% of a $500,000 income. Thus, those who make more money, still pay more. Alas, that is certainly not the way Marx would have portrayed it. Nor is it the way the current administration seems to see it given the president’s renewed push to instate ”The Buffett Rule,” which seeks to raise the income tax rate on high income earners — including small business owners — even higher than it is now.

Regardless, whether one is subject to a flat or a progressive tax system, a foreboding and omnipotent force looms dangerously over the American ether: The IRS. Fail to pay your “fair share,” and you will soon learn of the government’s ultimate power — to freeze your bank accounts, seize your property, penalize and, in some instances even imprison you. There is perhaps no greater example of a Marxist economic policy in action than this.

3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance

One of the many stark contradictions found in the Manifesto is outlined in this particular pillar. What was most ironic about Marx’s desire to abolish inheritance was that, if he had his way, citizens would not own anything of value to bequeath upon death in the first place. Nonetheless, his odd and arguably redundant tenet has worked its way into the American landscape via the estate tax — and its very alias, the “death tax.”  This alone should raise eyebrows, if not outright suspicion of government’s dubious motives.

First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s “night of living death tax.”

With the staggering rate applied to estates worth over $5 million, citizens may soon wonder why it is worth the bother to spend a lifetime building a personal or business empire to pass down to their children and grandchildren at all. By the second generation, there would be nothing left.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants & rebels

This Manifesto pillar is perhaps best laid out in the recent string of government crackdowns on “homegrown militias.” Those who have paid careful attention to Janet Napolitano know that one of Homeland Security’s preoccupations of late has been the “rise” of “homegrown militias.” With this in mind, the department is likely honing in on anyone considered an “opposition group,” be they merely survivalists or those with a more militant bent.

Some may recall the Michigan militia, or ”Hutaree,” as they are known — a group of anti-government “rebels” who were allegedly engaged in preparations for a potential future clash with federal agencies. The defendants were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, a planned assassination of a police officer, and an ambush of that officer’s funeral with explosives in order to incite an uprising against the Federal government. While the anticipated attack never actually occurred, this did not stop the Feds, under the blessing of Attorney General Eric Holder, from raiding the Hutaree’s various outposts, confiscating its members’ arms and waging an all-out legal battle against the group.

At the end of March, 2012, presiding U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed the most serious of the charges against the Hutaree, leveling a staggering blow to the Fed. She said the members’ hatred of government did not amount to a conspiracy to overthrow it.

It remains unclear whether the Hutaree were indeed poised to be the aggressors of a violent assault or if they were simply anti-big-government, “good ol’ boy“ survivalists preparing to ”defend themselves” against a perceived government threat. But the Federal agencies’ indictment of the group perhaps reveals how government will deal with homegrown “threats” — be they real or perceived — moving forward.

Another key element, and one that warrants mention due to its relevance in modern day America, is the confiscation of citizens’ weapons. Those who have felt their Second Amendment rights slowly whittle away understand that disarming the public is a crucial step vital to ensuring the state’s grip over its citizenry.  In fact, one of the first tasks performed by the then-fledgling Soviet state was the confiscation of citizens’ private arms — even hunting rifles. By stripping people of the ability to defend themselves, the authoritarian state could reign over the vulnerable Russian populace. Many Americans consider this a highly plausible reality given increasingly stringent gun laws and regulations spread across all 50-states.

It should also be noted that IRS liens, levies and seizures are all means by which the Federal government can confiscate a “rebel” entity’s assets — one instance being the recent IRS “shakedown” of Tea Party members.  And, in terms of “emigrants,” taxing the off-shore income and assets of American citizens, or causing Americans to give up their U.S. citizenship and flee to foreign lands to avoid abusive U.S. taxes, is yet another means by which the Fed’s confiscatory, overreaching tentacles are changing the American landscape.  Statistics point out a rising trend…

5. Centralization and monopolization of credit by means of a national bank 

Created by Congress in 1913, the Federal Reserve is, for all intents and purposes, America‘s national bank charged with setting the monetary policy that controls the nation’s economic stability. The Federal Reserve holds the power to guide interest rates, thus controlling inflation. The effects of this agency’s actions are felt in measurable ways by everyday Americans, every day. From the interest rate accrued to mortgages and other lines of credit to determining the value of one’s home, it is both the seen and unforeseen reach of this institution that sets the tone for Americans’ financial security.

On the grander scale, the Federal Reserve has the more sinister power of devaluing U.S. currency, and thus the value of goods, services and property, via “quantitative easing,” or, as it is affectionately dubbed, printing money.

“One of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore. “We haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.”

6. Centralized control of communication & transportation

a) Transportation

The ways in which the Federal government controls America’s communication and transportation systems are almost too vast to count, but a few shining examples stand out. In terms of transportation, the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Authority and the Department of Transportation are of course the most obvious government bureaucracies controlling the country’s means of transport. Less-obvious, perhaps, is Amtrak, a government owned corporation and essentially the only passenger rail carrier in the country. Indeed the railroad industry’s metamorphosis from a private enterprise to a nationalized entity perhaps tells the greatest tale of the insidious ways in which the Federal government appropriates what it wants, when it wants.

The once flourishing U.S. rail industry’s day in the sun was eclipsed when the Fed introduced a “rate-setting” scheme by which rail carriers were forced to adopt. The  result was a decrease in profits, decrease in rail system growth, decrease in investments and an increase in labor costs. Not surprisingly, this had the reverse effect than that intended by the Fed when it first set rail carrier rates.. Inevitably, a battered Amtrak gave way to government take-over. The obvious lesson here is that if it can happen to Amtrak there is no reason to think it couldn’t just as easily happen to a commercial air carrier, for example, or any other privately held mode of transportation.

As mentioned above, air traffic, ground traffic and maritime traffic via the nation’s port authorities are all overseen and subject to take-over by the government should FEMA deem a state of emergency.

b) Communication

Presently, when it comes to communication, conservatives argue that nothing screams of Marxism louder than the Federal Communications Commission and Obama’s appointment of its “Chief Diversity Officer,” Frank Lloyd.

One of the administration’s many “czars,” Lloyd was a senior fellow at the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress, where he authored a June 2007 report titled, ”The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” The content may point to Lloyd’s intentions when it comes to silencing voices of opposition, and many conservatives believe that Obama’s “Diversity Czar” intends to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

For those unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, obligated broadcasters to provide opposing points of view on issues of national importance regardless of actual market demand for the content. Media Research Center’s Setton Motley said, if reinstated, caps would be placed on local and national ownership of commercial radio stations; local accountability over licensing would be ensured; and those not in compliance would be subject to paying a fee to support public broadcasting. As it stands, the FCC already levies heavy regulations on broadcasters and monitors all communication aired across radio and television waves.

Looking forward, another impending threat can be found in the current struggle for control over the Internet. Currently, the World Wide Web is controlled by the U.S. government via the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Both are under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

There has been a growing push, however, for America to relinquish its control in the name of a world “without borders,“ or ”one world government.” Countries like China and Russia, in particular, have vied for control, doggedly pursuing the United Nations for assistance in breaking the U.S. stronghold.

If the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), along with its nearly 200 member state allies were to take control of the levers, cyber security and data privacy would be subject to international control.

While even in the land of the free no information received or transmitted over the Internet escapes the prying eyes of Big Brother, it goes without saying America’s First Amendment rights still ensure a far more liberated information superhighway than the one that would exist under the reins of a dubious global body formed by the U.N. and led by China and Russia. Meanwhile, the entire global economy hangs in the balance.

7. Government ownership of factories 

In terms of government owned factories, few could ever forget “Government Motors.” After nearly $53 billion in bailout funds over the course of two administrations, the U.S. government now owns a controlling stake in GM, raising the obvious question of how government can fairly regulate its own business.  While GM asked the government to intervene, and while Amtrak was instead a victim of a federally-engineered scheme, both are examples of how government assumes control of private enterprise. Typically, it is the American taxpayer who fails to reap the dividends and becomes the victim of these machinations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor

The first thought which springs to mind when reading the Manifesto’s tenet on equal labor is the overriding presence of labor unions within the U.S. workforce. While labor unions in and of themselves are not nationalized organizing bodies, they have enjoyed a long and harmonious relationship with government, particularly through the progressive policies and lawmakers that prop up their various agendas. In fact, there may be no brighter an illustration of socialism manifested than the collective organizing body of America’s labor unions. Although subject to regulation and oversight by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions still overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, thus a cycle of quid pro quo is perpetuated.

Another example of government control in the workplace emerges via the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action policies. By mandating that employers meet a staff-quota comprised of women, minorities and people with disabilities, private business is being forced to relinquish its ability to hire on the basis of merit, thus failing to deliver excellence and best practices. While many women, minorities and those with disabilities do indeed possess the skill sets needed to succeed in a specific job, it should, critics argue, be left to private enterprise to determine which candidate is best suited for the task at hand.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned corporation, has been hailed a prime example of true socialism in America. It is the country’s largest public power company, with a generating capacity of 31,658 megawatts. Its 17,000 miles of transmission lines deliver power through 158 locally owned distributors to 8.5 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. While even Republicans, for the most part, consider TVA to be a success, its case is considered unique in that the government model has never been able to be successfully duplicated along any other State waterway.

Agricultural subsidies are another prime example of this Manifesto plank in motion. An extensive analysis conducted by the CATO Institute determined that, when it comes to corporate welfare no one has reaped a greater windfall, or hurt taxpayers more than the “supermarket to the world,” Archer Daniels. An excerpt from the report reads:

ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

Aside from being incongruent with the free market, the nation’s agricultural subsidies cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars each year and typically only benefit larger farming outfits.

On the flip side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing greater and greater restrictions on business in the form of cap and trade and in mandating the purchase of carbon credits.

10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools

What can be said of America’s beleaguered public education system could fill volumes, yet one needn’t look far to pluck one or two prime examples as proof that there are indeed no “free lunches.”

The Blaze recently uncovered a series of reports revealing what happens when a bureaucrat decides that the school district, along with its unionized faculty members, know better about a child’s needs than his or her parents do. Whether the control comes via mandating  a child’s school lunch box contents, or altering the Pledge of Allegiance to omit the phrase “one nation under God,” or subjecting students to inadequate instruction from a teacher solely on the basis of that teacher’s tenure – a teacher who cannot be fired or replaced — the public school system is, arguably, setting up generations for failure.

Free medicine…the 11th tenet?  

While not addressed specifically in the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto, national health care is perhaps — at least in modern day America — “the key to the empire.” It is why the fate of Obamacare is of utmost importance to the left. If passed, it sets precedent by establishing the “new normal” in government authority over private citizens. Legal experts and pundits alike have consistently argued the unconstitutionality of the health care bill, underscoring its significance as a “gateway” to other forms of government intrusion.

The bill’s unconstitutionality is irrelevant to those who, while claiming to champion the founding document, appear to be working to dismantle it.

Some balk at the use of the word “Communism,” dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10  progressive “rules to live by,” the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist “utopia” is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.

Washington Times KUHNER: Obama’s disastrous war Only victory president wants to win is his own on Election Day

President Obama has lost Afghanistan. The war is turning into a catastrophic defeat - one that will be worse than Vietnam. It is time to bring the troops home, and end this national nightmare.

Recently, the Taliban launched a major spring offensive. Insurgents targeted Kabul and three other cities. They were rebuffed by allied troops and the Afghan army. But the Taliban were able to infiltrate security zones that were supposed to be impenetrable. Their coordinated attacks were a military failure. Diplomatically and psychologically, however, they were devastating. For months, American commanders have claimed that the Taliban are in retreat, and that Afghans are successfully building up their police and security forces. Mr. Obama vowed “the tide of war is receding.”

This is false. Afghanistan has become a protracted military quagmire. It is the longest war in U.S. history. America is being bled white. Nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed with thousands more maimed and crippled. The war has cost close to $500 billion - and counting. We have come to be reviled in large parts of that country, seen as an invading army. Most Americans no longer support the war. Why should they? Al Qaeda has been smashed. Osama bin Laden is dead. The country is fracturing along tribal lines. The government in Kabul is weak, venal and corrupt. President Hamid Karzai is an ingrate, who routinely chastises U.S. forces and urges the quickest withdrawal possible.

Mr. Obama said that Afghanistan, unlike the Iraq campaign, was the “necessary war.” It had to be won - at all costs. Hence, he implemented a massive troop surge. The administration believed that more soldiers and a better counter-insurgency strategy was the key to victory. Yet, the policy was doomed to fail for one reason: Nation-building cannot succeed there.

Afghanistan is one of the most primitive and impoverished countries on Earth. It is the graveyard of empires. Imperial Britain, Soviet Russia - they suffered major defeats due to fierce indigenous resistance.Afghanistan’s history is plagued by ceaseless warfare and violent ethnic conflict. To think that this cursed land can be transformed into the Switzerland of South Asia - and to do it sacrificing precious American blood and treasure - is the height of imperial arrogance.

Moreover, Afghanistan has revealed another lesson: Liberalism has made America unable to win a challenging war. Policymakers are obsessed with international opinion and appeasing local sensitivities. The goal of victory has been trumped by multiculturalism. U.S. soldiers have been fighting under strict rules of engagement, enabling theTaliban to hide in civilian-populated areas with impunity. American military leaders regularly apologize - almost grovel - for behavior common in every major war. Four U.S. troops urinated on dead Talibanbodies. Copies of the Koran were inadvertently burned at a U.S. base. The latest scandal involves U.S. soldiers posing for pictures with the body parts of dead suicide bombers. Our leaders do all they can to immediately placate the enemy.

“This is not who we are, and it’s certainly not who we represent when it comes to the great majority of men and women in uniform who are serving there,” said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta.

Really? Tell that to the “Greatest Generation,” which crushed Nazi Germany and fascist Japan. American forces used flame throwers to smoke out Japanese kamikaze fighters hiding in caves. Many were burned alive; others were severely disfigured. As retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters has pointed out, many GIs sent Japanese skulls as war gifts to their girlfriends or wives back home. Also, America carpet-bombed Dresden, killing thousands of German civilians. Had we applied today’s rules of engagement to World War II, Hitler and Tojo would never have been defeated.

This begs the question: If Mr. Obama did not have a plan for victory, then why the troop surge? The answer is obvious - and damning: It was a cynical attempt to appear tough on national security. He wanted to protect his right flank from GOP charges that he is too soft in dealing with foreign affairs. In the face of growing anti-war opposition within his own party and the larger public, he cut the troops loose. He ordered the premature withdrawal of the 30,000 surge troops to be completed by this fall - conveniently, just before the election. The 90,000 military personnel still remaining do not have the resources or manpower to pacify the country. They cannot even properly defend themselves from the resurgent Taliban. Mr. Obama has deliberately squandered American lives in a futile effort with no possibility of success. He cannot even bring himself to defend a war - and a surge - that he now bears sole responsibility for. This is not statesmanship, but cowardice.

America’s defeat is inevitable. Unlike Vietnam, the consequences will be more far-reaching and costly. Radical Islam will have triumphed over the “Great Satan,” demonstrating to the Muslim world that America lacks the will and sense of purpose to win a prolonged land war. We will be exposed as a paper tiger. Afghanistan will again become a sanctuary for jihadists; Islamic militants will be even more emboldened across the Middle East and North Africa. It will mark the United States’ long, humiliating retreat from the region - the end of the American superpower. The wars of the past decade have led to imperial overstretch, military exhaustion and national bankruptcy.

The tragic result is that Americans will continue to die for a cause their commander in chief does not believe in and which they cannot win. This is why all of them should be brought home immediately. Mr. Obama’s re-election is not worth dying for.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Washington Times KUHNER: Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan has the formula for restoring America’s prosperity

Mitt Romney will be the GOP presidential candidate. Former Sen. Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign, clearing the path forMr. Romney’s inevitable victory at the convention. The ex-Massachusetts governor now faces a pivotal question: Who will be his vice-presidential running mate?

There are numerous possible choices - almost all of them bad. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is boring. New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez lacks a national profile. Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour left office plagued by a pardon scandal. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is bright, articulate and a Tea Party favorite. Yet, he does not want the job and has said so publicly and repeatedly.

This leaves only three realistic options: Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnellis a staunch fiscal and social conservative. He can also help galvanize evangelical Christians, a key voting bloc Mr. Romney needs in November. Virginia is a key toss-up state. Mr. McDonnell could enable Team Romney to put it in the Republican column. He is competent, talented and principled. He would be a solid choice. But Mr. McDonnelllacks one compelling trait: star power. Mr. Romney so far is failing to catch fire with voters. Mr. Romney is brainy, tenacious and an experienced businessman. The one quality he lacks, however, is charisma. Mr. McDonnell does nothing for him on that crucial front.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has massive charm. His blunt, straight talk and ability to connect with working-class voters has catapulted him to national prominence. He has also rolled back public health care and pension benefits, as well as faced down New Jersey’s powerful labor unions. He has slashed spending and cut taxes. He has shown fiscal responsibility can work even in a deep blue state. Yet, Mr. Christie has one serious drawback: He is not a conservative. Rather, he is a pragmatic moderate, who is socially liberal and wedded to the GOPestablishment. This may be the only kind of Republicanism that can win in the Northeast. For Mr. Romney, however, picking Mr. Christie would be the kiss of death. It would permanently alienate conservatives, many of whom remain skeptical about the GOP standard-bearer’s ideological convictions.

There is one man who can help Mr. Romney win in November: Rep. Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin Republican has emerged as a potent political force. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan has become the de facto leader of the anti-Obama opposition. His budget plans have been routinely vilified by President Obama. Mr. Ryan is a principled fiscal hawk. He is a policy wonk who possesses an excellent grasp of budgetary issues. He is highly intelligent, articulate and telegenic. Wisconsin is a pivotal swing state. It is not blue or red, but purple - a real toss-up. Mr. Ryan is well known and respected across the Badger State. He could tip it into Republican hands, delivering a major blow to Mr. Obama’s re-election chances. In short, Mr. Ryan would bring policy gravitas, a high-profile personality and geographic clout to the Romney campaign.

A Romney-Ryan ticket would be almost invincible. It would exude the very opposite of Mr. Obama’s presidency - competence, maturity and sound economic fundamentals. The central issue of the election is the weak recovery and anemic economy. Mr. Ryan has become the symbol of fiscal prudence and budget-cutting. He understands the reality of our time: America is on the verge of becoming Greece; an Obama second term will lead to national bankruptcy. No one can make that urgent case more persuasively than Mr. Ryan.

Under Mr. Obama, the national debt is approaching $16 trillion. He has created the most indebted country in history. He has racked up three annual deficits each more than $1.2 trillion. This year the budget deficit is projected to exceed $1.3 trillion. In total, he has accumulated about $5 trillion in debt. These spending and deficit levels are unsustainable. Instead of curbing government expenditures, Mr. Obama plans to add another $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade. This is a guaranteed path to economic collapse.

The Ryan budget provides a coherent, realistic alternative. He proposes to repeal Obamacare, reduce spending, cut the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, reform the tax code and revamp the bloated welfare state. His goal is to unleash market-driven growth and modernize entitlements. Mr. Ryan calls for Medicaid to be transformed into a federal block grant (similar to welfare reform), enabling the states to have the flexibility and opportunity to efficiently allocate assistance to the poor. He also wants to bring choice and competition to Medicare through “premium supports” - lucrative government subsidies that would enable seniors to pick from a menu of insurance options. For this, Mr. Obama has labeled him a “Social Darwinist” - one who wants to return America to the Gilded Age.

This is shameless propaganda. Mr. Ryan is not a jungle capitalist, seeking to throw the poor onto the streets. Instead, he is a devout Catholic, who believes in subsidiarity, localism and a basic safety net. Social programs, however, should not be a license to squander taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

Republicans have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to present a governing vision that stands in stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s reactionary socialism - one based on economic revival, smaller government, balanced budgets and averting a debt crisis that threatens our very existence.

The Ryan plan is a hammer that will smash Obamaism. Mr. Romney has rightly embraced it. And there is no better way to prove his commitment than to choose Mr. Ryan as his running mate. ARomney-Ryan ticket is the Democrats’ worst nightmare, and it is our best shot at restoring the American dream.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.