Simpson-Bowles did suggest cutting defense (F-35, EFV and the Osprey), raising revenues (eliminating loopholes and deductions) and reforming entitlements (Medicare/Social Security).

The fact that it was dead on arrival tells you all you need to know about our chances of solving the budget crisis. No one will treat the debt as a problem until we're paying Portugal levels of interest on our debt. Of course, by that point, it's too late.

This article would hold more creedence if we actually had a foreign policy. Continuing Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan, GITMO, and Miltary Tribunals, not to mention the weak kneed approach to Libya, Syria, Iran, etc, and the continuous bowing/apologizing to everyone around the world does not constitute foreign policy. Smartest thing thing Hillary ever did was to announce she is leaving since John Kerry seems to do all the negotiating. If this administartion ever had an original thought on FP, it roll out of someone's ear and get stepped on.

For the record so I won't have to here more journalists rant about DoD spending not being cut, SECDEF Gates has already mandated a $100B cut to defense spending. The DoD would seem to be the one and only department that is actually doing anything to fix this mess.

Maybe it’s just me but calling budget cuts and setting up death panels in the same article seams counter productive. But here are some thoughts on the subject.

1. "budget is not just a collection of numbers, but an expression of our values and aspirations.” Maybe true but let’s face the fact if we can’t pay for our values and aspirations then we should not have them. I aspire for a brand new home but if I can’t afford it or I can’t pass the credit check should I be allowed to get it NO.
2."American foreign policy should almost exclusively be those of force and hard power and that we should effectively unilaterally disarm in terms of soft power and diplomacy. " Let me get this correct soft power and diplomacy always work right. I think if you ask many countries they would laugh at that statement. Walk softly and carry a big stick.
3." Ryan and the Republicans don’t understand foreign policy and they don't want America to continue to play a leadership role in the world." Wait the president and Democrats that were elected to lead this country understand better about foreign policy and leadership role. So here is my question why are they following the same exact play book of the Bush era. Why have we allowed China to become the second largest trading partner to Colombia? Why are we not being more proactive in Latin America instead we allow China to gain a foot on this hemisphere.

The problems of this budget and our finances are every bodies fault. Let’s stop the name calling and political gains of blaming Democrats or Republicans or any president and get things done. I f I have to live with in my means so should the government.

"this is a budget that says the developed country that spends less than any other on aid "

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics:

First of all, there is a logical fallacy here of equating diplomacy with Foreign Aid. If that were the sum total of diplomatic efforts, then the Secretary of State could be replaced by a check book.

Secondly, you are twisting the truth viciously to suit the color of your narrative. In point of fact, the United States is the LARGEST provider of foreign aid of any country in the world (~$28 B), followed by Germany(~$12 B) in absolute dollars. Perhaps you mean "as a percentage of GDP"? That would be closer to the truth, but perhaps would not carry the emotional impact, since your rhetoric here is akin to a certain Chicken Little's.

So the question then is, how effective have Germany's foreign relations efforts vis-a-vis Dollars spent, compare with say, New Zealand (~$320M)? Can you say that Germany's foreign policy efforts are 37 times more effective?

In point of fact, the United States is on the verge of having our credit rating lowered, and potentially seeing the dollar go into a free fall as foreign investors dump the dollar in favor of more stable currencies. We are standing at a precipice of future loss of American influence in toto. Fixing our economy and our budget is a far more critical factor in future American influence than a reduction of foreign aid. Common sense should tell us that when we are facing bankruptcy, money GIVEN away is one of the first places we should look to cut spending.

But of course, you already knew that. But the opportunity to wage partisan warfare is just too tempting. Don't worry, I understand. The Chief Executive is doing the same thing.

The commentator here is mistaken or misleading on the energy budget. It doesn't cut 7 billion. Ryan's budget does not provide funding by agency level - it is grouped by function.

Function 270 where Mr. Rothkopf draws his numbers is an aggregate of different agencies - Rural Utilities Service, TVA NRC FERC, also includes Yucca Mountain issues to name a few. The cuts he's noting is likely applied across agencies, not just Department of Energy.

Also, the budget authority noted in Function 270 includes revenues drawn in by fees (like that drawn from plants for supposed cleanup of nuclear waste), and revenues from power generation by Tennessee Valley Authority and power marketing administrations. These revenues are posted in the account as negative "offsetting receipts", so they appear to reduce overall spending numbers.

The Energy budget cuts are a LOT smaller than Mr. Rothkopf notes.

The politics in this country are getting out of hand with ideological arguments replacing logic. No longer do we hear our politicians deliver brilliant arguments like our founding fathers did. Instead, we hear Glenn Beck prod at emotions. There are obvious solutions to so many of our problems, but they persist because everyone is so easily fooled by ridiculous arguments.

We should really start to consider instituting educational requirements for holding a congressional office. Just because someone went to law school doesn't mean they have the slightest idea about foreign affairs, economics or any other technical subject.