#NeuterTrump Budget: What Is to Be Done?

 

The omnibus spending bill is a clear rejection of President Trump and of the Deplorable, populist, “hobbit” sort of voters. It was jammed through the House and Senate, and signed by President Trump in the name of national defense. Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell crafted a bill that shows maximum contempt for immigration enforcement, for repeal of Obamacare, and for almost every issue driving Republican primary voters and “Reagan Democrats.”

Hillary’s latest outburst was downright respectful next to the congressional majority leadership’s big, fat “forget you” to the forgotten Americans. The same establishment leadership opposed, mocked and subverted the Tea Party movement. So, we are left with the question: what is to be done?

Embrace the Power of “And.”

It is true both that the Republican Budget, Once Again, Gives Democrats Everything and that President Trump failed to have a month-long full Cabinet campaign, selling his priorities especially hard in the states with Senate seats on the 2018 ballot, while dropping truth bombs all over pork and bad elitist ideas, which national polls show the American people do not support.

The Republicans’ #FailureTheater is nothing new. They are not the Stupid Party, they are masters of maintaining personal power and fund-raising by avoiding angering their donor class. In the process, they endeavor to generate just enough rhetorical and symbolic activity to keep the rubes rolling into the polls every other November. President Trump threatens this enduring system, which threatens him and his family back. He has had 16 months, since his election, to observe the Swamp and develop an effective legislative strategy. He failed, in the midst of national security threats, mass killings, and perpetual investigation, to lead a focused campaign to nudge (ok, shove) congressional Republicans on spending.

The #NeuterTrump Campaign

The Omnibus spending bill is only the latest measure in a series of active and passive-aggressive efforts to effectively void the 2016 Electoral College results. The Senate Republican majority chose the rules and allowed “defections” to prevent Obamacare repeal, with not one Senator stripped of a single committee assignment. Both the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader have allowed unending “investigations” to maintain the insinuation that President Trump was not legitimately elected by American citizens, voting based on their own competent judgment. Senator McConnell has chosen to not to force votes to confirm President Trump’s executive appointments, feigning outrage and helplessness in the face of Senator Schumer’s determined opposition. As Paul Mirengoff recently wrote at Power Line:

Confirmation requires only 50 votes. The GOP has those votes. Thus, it doesn’t need to make deals to confirm nominees.

It’s true that the Democrats have taken advantage of stalling tactics. But Senate Republicans can overcome these tactics by adjusting the rules and working more days.

Harry Reid “adjusted” far more venerable rules than the 30 hours of debate requirement the Dems are using now. Reid wouldn’t stand for obstruction and Republicans shouldn’t either.

The Congressional Republicans are not the Stupid Party, they are the #NeuterTrump Party, and they must be overcome in the next few months of Senate primaries.

Build a MAGA Majority Now

I do not agree that “you can vote for conservatism, but you can’t get it.” We can do it, yes we can. The path to real change is through the Senate midterm elections. Ronald Reagan pressured Blue Dog Democrats into crossing the aisle for his legislative agenda by appealing to their constituents in their districts. With the Democratic Party purged of anyone who would cross the left’s agenda, the fight now is for the Republican Party in Congress. The fulcrum is the threat to Mitch McConnell of up to 10 Senate seats flipping from Democrat to MAGA Republican and three open seats in currently Republican states being filled by MAGA candidates.

President Trump needs to start immediately, building off his promise to never again sign a bill like the monstrosity he signed March 23. He needs to make the case for immediate reform of the confirmation process — “Senators, do your job, no days off until all my nominees are confirmed, and get it done before June!” He also needs to make the case for ending the 60-vote rule on budget bills: “no more playing games with our national security, no more games with our people’s safety here at home; stop playing games with the American people’s money!”

The bottom line deal, with the easiest sell, would be changing the rule to 50 votes for Defense and Homeland Security appropriation bills. Taking those two off the table would gut the big spenders’ leverage over the entire budget. As President Trump is making the case around the country, he must demand all midterm candidates immediately, loudly, and unequivocally support these reforms, joining him in pressuring Senate Majority Leader McConnell with the implicit threat of losing his precious leadership office.

But what if the Senate flips? As Paul Mirengoff pointed out, the Senate Democrats will change any rule they find obstructing their goals. The Senate Republicans know this, so are either in deep denial or are being deliberately deceptive. It is long past time to call them on it. Indeed, by calling them on their dysfunctional behavior, we can help Senate Republicans keep the promises they made. Keeping promises increases public trust. Public trust will lead to Senate seats held and gained, pushing the day the Senate flips well into future election cycles.

Here are the 2018 US Senate Republican Party primaries. Time to defeat the #NeuterTrump campaign, and the endless cycle of broken promises by Republican officeholders. Time for a MAGA Majority campaign.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 26 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Legislatures behave this way and noting we do can change that, even so anyone who is blatantly center left needs to go.  As I keep saying it’s a game theory game, so left to itself everybody always loses and it doesn’t matter who is playing, so it must have a game solution imposed.   Its a chaos theory reality, it’s not something that can be micro managed by moving pieces around.  It needs  rules and these come from White House leadership.  Yes part of the discipline that Trump must impose once he’s told the Congress what they must do which he has failed to do so far, is to threaten recalcitrant members with a primary.  (This does not refer to conservatives who don’t support the budget abominations.)  But he first must make explicit and sell to the public what must be done.  This essential narrative must be put together from zero by the cabinet.

    • #1
  2. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Contributor
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Clifford A. Brown: The omnibus spending bill is a clear rejection of President Trump and of the Deplorable, populist, “hobbit” sort of voters. It was jammed through the House and Senate, and signed by President Trump in the name of national defense

    I’m not so confident that it was.

    For one thing, military spending is a “hobbit” priority. So are law-and-order measures like more drug enforcement, especially considering how hard various “hobbit” areas have been hit by the opioid crisis. Politicians typically think of infrastructure spending as something that both Makes America Great Again and helps create decent, dignified jobs for the “hobbits” – we can be skeptical of what politicians promise on this front, but they never stop promising it.

    From the lawmakers’ point of view – heck, even from Trump’s point of view – there’s stuff in this bill to help the “hobbits”, even if the bill fell noticeably short in several respects.

    (Note that fiscal austerity, which the bill of course totally lacks, may not be high up on either Trump’s or the “hobbit” list of priorities. Trump was notable in the Republican primaries for promising not to molest entitlements. That in itself signaled that Trump didn’t prioritize austerity very highly. Moreover, Trump’s winning the primaries signaled that voters weren’t really interested in promises to prioritize austerity.)

    • #2
  3. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    I think this means the loss of Congress in November, at least the House, and probably a big slice of the Senate. The enthusiasm of Republican voters, including me, is pretty much deflated. I see little reason to vote. This will probably mean an impeachment vote and nothing worthwhile will get done next year.

    • #3
  4. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    Moreover, Trump’s winning the primaries signaled that voters weren’t really interested in promises to prioritize austerity.)

    Bush tried to get a mild reform passed that included private accounts. He lost the Congress in 2006 as a result. The great recession followed with Democrats flogging to “liar loans.”

    • #4
  5. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Mike-K (View Comment):

    I think this means the loss of Congress in November, at least the House, and probably a big slice of the Senate. The enthusiasm of Republican voters, including me, is pretty much deflated. I see little reason to vote. This will probably mean an impeachment vote and nothing worthwhile will get done next year.

    I have the same concern, but do not accept that it is inevitable. I believe the Senate and House Republicans can be saved from themselves with a bold public campaign for simple, sensible changes to Senate (self-created) rules. Getting Defense and Homeland Security out of the scrum takes all the power away from the big spenders.

    • #5
  6. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown: The omnibus spending bill is a clear rejection of President Trump and of the Deplorable, populist, “hobbit” sort of voters. It was jammed through the House and Senate, and signed by President Trump in the name of national defense

    I’m not so confident that it was.

    For one thing, military spending is a “hobbit” priority. So are law-and-order measures like more drug-enforcement, especially considering how hard various “hobbit” areas have been hit by the opioid crisis. Politicians typically think of infrastructure spending as something that both Makes America Great Again and helps create decent, dignified jobs for the “hobbits” – we can be skeptical of what politicians promise on this front, but they never stop promising it.

    From the lawmakers’ point of view – heck, even from Trump’s point of view – there’s stuff in this bill to help the “hobbits”, even if the bill fell noticeably short in several respects.

    (Note that fiscal austerity, which the bill of course totally lacks, may not be high up on either Trump’s or the “hobbit” list of priorities. Trump was notable in the Republican primaries for promising not to molest entitlements. That in itself signaled that Trump didn’t prioritize austerity very highly. Moreover, Trump’s winning the primaries signaled that voters weren’t really interested in promises to prioritize austerity.)

    Yes, I addressed the defense issue. Making funding Americans’ safety a must pass (50 vote) bill (Defense and Homeland Security appropriations) ensures these cannot be used as excuses or hostages to generalized government bloat. President Trump has repeatedly called for elimination of the filibuster on spending. He just needs to focus the message onto “safety” funding and we would have real reform.

    • #6
  7. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Expecting any kind of disciplined messaging or consistent strategy for long-term change from Trump is a fool’s dream. This won’t happen with him in charge.

    • #7
  8. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Trump and Trumpism are not synonymous. Trumpism is the agenda upon which Trump ran. If the congress and Trump do not work together to get it done, then those who voted for Trumpism will not vote. If the Democrats succeed in taking the Congress, expect that Trump will abandon Trumpism and govern as a Democrat. That would fracture the Republicans while gaining the undying love of McCain, Sasse, Cornyn, Collins, et al. (not really, but you get my point). And it would probably be a 50.4% popular vote and an Electoral College win.

    • #8
  9. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Clifford A. Brown: they endeavor to generate just enough rhetorical and symbolic activity to keep the rubes rolling into the polls

    Trumpism may be the victim of this con — especially as regards immigration — but Trump may be its most successful practitioner.

    • #9
  10. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Legislatures behave this way and noting we do can change that, even so anyone who is blatantly center left needs to go. As I keep saying it’s a game theory game, so left to itself everybody always loses and it doesn’t matter who is playing, so it must have a game solution imposed. Its a chaos theory reality, it’s not something that can be micro managed by moving pieces around. It needs rules and these come from White House leadership. Yes part of the discipline that Trump must impose once he’s told the Congress what they must do which he has failed to do so far, is to threaten recalcitrant members with a primary. (This does not refer to conservatives who don’t support the budget abominations.) But he first must make explicit and sell to the public what must be done. This essential narrative must be put together from zero by the cabinet.

    I like the way you think. 

    You are right — this is the correct way to actually get things done — and not just posture with no real effect.

    But, government can only do one or two maybe three things at a time and only one big thing at a time. Trump has a lot of balls in the air.

    • #10
  11. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    I pray the OP is right and will be heeded.  We gotta keep on keepin’ on! I mean, consider the alternative.  Have you read the venom Keith Ellison is spewing?  He came  thiiiiiis close to being DNC chair!  

    America, honey! Wake up!!!!

    • #11
  12. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Contributor
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Mike-K (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):
    Moreover, Trump’s winning the primaries signaled that voters weren’t really interested in promises to prioritize austerity.)

    Bush tried to get a mild reform passed that included private accounts. He lost the Congress in 2006 as a result. The great recession followed with Democrats flogging to “liar loans.”

    Oh, I agree that voters had the same problem in 2006. Getting enough voters to buy into austerity is tough always, and even austerity wonks might struggle to stick to their own message if they doubt they have the voters’ buy-in (a doubt refreshed rather than allayed by the 2016 campaigns).

    • #12
  13. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    What does a “MAGA majority” look like?

    Mr. MAGA himself signed this budget into law. 

    • #13
  14. Dave Carter Podcaster
    Dave Carter
    @DaveCarter

    Larry Koler (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Legislatures behave this way and noting we do can change that, even so anyone who is blatantly center left needs to go. As I keep saying it’s a game theory game, so left to itself everybody always loses and it doesn’t matter who is playing, so it must have a game solution imposed. Its a chaos theory reality, it’s not something that can be micro managed by moving pieces around. It needs rules and these come from White House leadership. Yes part of the discipline that Trump must impose once he’s told the Congress what they must do which he has failed to do so far, is to threaten recalcitrant members with a primary. (This does not refer to conservatives who don’t support the budget abominations.) But he first must make explicit and sell to the public what must be done. This essential narrative must be put together from zero by the cabinet.

    I like the way you think.

    You are right — this is the correct way to actually get things done — and not just posture with no real effect.

    But, government can only do one or two maybe three things at a time and only one big thing at a time. Trump has a lot of balls in the air.

    Unfortunately, he didn’t have enough of them in the air, or anywhere else, to say No to the swamp when it counted. My sense is that he and the rest of us will pay a very steep price for this. 

    • #14
  15. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    In order to accomplish what you want will require leadership and/or basic competence at the top. Both qualities are lacking in the current President. 

    Drain the swamp is just like the rest of Trump’s populism: utter bull [expletive].  The campaign self funding was utter bull [expletive]. The anti-Goldman Sachs rhetoric was utter bull [expletive].  Building the wall and making Mexico pay for it was utter bull bull [expletive].

    Anyone could see from a mile away that a guy who spent his life making sleazy business deals and who opened bragged about bribing politicians wasn’t gonna drain any swamps. 

    • #15
  16. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

      It isn’t as difficult to cut the budget as is always portrayed..  Nor need it be a battle with Congress if sold to the public and if pork  they want isn’t touched.  We’re talking about the executive branch.  The President is in charge of the executive branch thus the responsibility to design a budget belongs to it.   Every bureaucracy is huge and overstaffed even bureaucracies that serve a purpose can be cut easily by 10 to 20%, employees left behind will have improved morale and better jobs.  There are few lobbies willing to die for marginal cuts in personnel.

     When asked to cut those who oppose any cuts always put forth programs that actually do things for which there are lobbies.  Zero based budget avoids this as it demands that every Department, Agency and office state it’s objectives in detail and show how resources are allocated to those tasks.   This budget cutting must be done by the executive branch at every level and any recalcitrants  can be fired for insubordination or reassigned and any Cabinet member who can’t submit an appropriate and deeply cut budget can submit their resignations in stead and those of their DASs.  It is difficult to fire people but no longer expensive, civilians had their retirement privatized in the 80s. Some programs with important congressional support can be sent to the States, thus not subject to wild claims of starving children (that should be part of zero based budgeting design).   

    The things that are exploding our budget SS and Medicare are a different story for later but they require WH leadership as well and if he successfully cuts discretionary spending he’ll be in position to tackle those in his second term after putting forth his plans as part of his campaign.  These too can be done in ways that are actually popular. 

    • #16
  17. Valiuth Inactive
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Trump isn’t a victim in all of this. He is an active participant in missmanagemnet. This budget isn’t about neutering Trump, it is about avoiding hard decisions before the 2018 election. And Trump too is trying to avoid responsibility which is why he waits until the last second to complain. The man doesn’t care about debt or the budget, much less the budget process which gets us these omnibus monstrosities. 

    • #17
  18. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    I Walton (View Comment):

    It isn’t as difficult to cut the budget as is always portrayed.. Nor need it be a battle with Congress if sold to the public and if pork they want isn’t touched. We’re talking about the executive branch. The President is in charge of the executive branch thus the responsibility to design a budget belongs to it. Every bureaucracy is huge and overstaffed even bureaucracies that serve a purpose can be cut easily by 10 to 20%, employees left behind will have improved morale and better jobs. There are few lobbies willing to die for marginal cuts in personnel.

    When asked to cut those who oppose any cuts always put forth programs that actually do things for which there are lobbies. Zero based budget avoids this as it demands that every Department, Agency and office state it’s objectives in detail and show how resources are allocated to those tasks. This budget cutting must be done by the executive branch at every level and any recalcitrants can be fired for insubordination or reassigned and any Cabinet member who can’t submit an appropriate and deeply cut budget can submit their resignations in stead and those of their DASs. It is difficult to fire people but no longer expensive, civilians had their retirement privatized in the 80s. Some programs with important congressional support can be sent to the States, thus not subject to wild claims of starving children (that should be part of zero based budgeting design).

    The things that are exploding our budget SS and Medicare are a different story for later but they require WH leadership as well and if he successfully cuts discretionary spending he’ll be in position to tackle those in his second term after putting forth his plans as part of his campaign. These too can be done in ways that are actually popular.

    Zero based budgeting is a fine tool. It has little relationship to how Congress appropriates money. In this most recent bill, many of the administration’s items were funded at levels much higher than requested. For whatever reason, the swamp has different ideas about the correct level of funds for the State Department, the EPA etc. And the Supreme Court has already opined on a President’s refusal to spend appropriated funds.

    During the height of the Naval Race between Wilhelmine Germany and the British Empire, First Lord Winston Churchill submitted a request for Parliament to fund the construction of six additional battleships. Parliament, alarmed at the seemingly unlimited demand for new ships, offered to fund four dreadnoughts.

    To paraphrase Churchill, “I requested six. Parliament offered four. We compromised at eight.”

     

    • #18
  19. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Dave Carter (View Comment):

    Larry Koler (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Legislatures behave this way and noting we do can change that, even so anyone who is blatantly center left needs to go. As I keep saying it’s a game theory game, so left to itself everybody always loses and it doesn’t matter who is playing, so it must have a game solution imposed. Its a chaos theory reality, it’s not something that can be micro managed by moving pieces around. It needs rules and these come from White House leadership. Yes part of the discipline that Trump must impose once he’s told the Congress what they must do which he has failed to do so far, is to threaten recalcitrant members with a primary. (This does not refer to conservatives who don’t support the budget abominations.) But he first must make explicit and sell to the public what must be done. This essential narrative must be put together from zero by the cabinet.

    I like the way you think.

    You are right — this is the correct way to actually get things done — and not just posture with no real effect.

    But, government can only do one or two maybe three things at a time and only one big thing at a time. Trump has a lot of balls in the air.

    Unfortunately, he didn’t have enough of them in the air, or anywhere else, to say No to the swamp when it counted. My sense is that he and the rest of us will pay a very steep price for this.

    Reagan was faced with a similar situation. 

    Omnibus bills need to go.

    • #19
  20. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    It isn’t as difficult to cut the budget as is always portrayed.. Nor need it be a battle with Congress if sold to the public and if pork they want isn’t touched. We’re talking about the executive branch. The President is in charge of the executive branch thus the responsibility to design a budget belongs to it. Every bureaucracy is huge and overstaffed even bureaucracies that serve a purpose can be cut easily by 10 to 20%, employees left behind will have improved morale and better jobs. There are few lobbies willing to die for marginal cuts in personnel.

    When asked to cut those who oppose any cuts always put forth programs that actually do things for which there are lobbies. Zero based budget avoids this as it demands that every Department, Agency and office state it’s objectives in detail and show how resources are allocated to those tasks. This budget cutting must be done by the executive branch at every level and any recalcitrants can be fired for insubordination or reassigned and any Cabinet member who can’t submit an appropriate and deeply cut budget can submit their resignations in stead and those of their DASs. It is difficult to fire people but no longer expensive, civilians had their retirement privatized in the 80s. Some programs with important congressional support can be sent to the States, thus not subject to wild claims of starving children (that should be part of zero based budgeting design).

    actually popular.

    Zero based budgeting is a fine tool. It has little relationship to how Congress appropriates money. In this most recent bill, many of the administration’s items were funded at levels much higher than requested. For whatever reason, the swamp has different ideas about the correct level of funds for the State Department, the EPA etc. And the Supreme Court has already opined on a President’s refusal to spend appropriated funds.

    During the height of the Naval Race between Wilhelmine Germany and the British Empire, First Lord Winston Churchill submitted a request for Parliament to fund the construction of six additional battleships. Parliament, alarmed at the seemingly unlimited demand for new ships, offered to fund four dreadnoughts.

    To paraphrase Churchill, “I requested six. Parliament offered four. We compromised at eight.”

    Of course.  Leadership of the issue requires concrete proposals and a PR campaign.  Trump must dominate the narrative and make it costly to oppose him, but first he has to have a package, including the talking points, anecdotes, etc. and drive it home for months.  This is why he should begin with size and discretionary spending, leaving the pork alone. 

     

     

    • #20
  21. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    I don’t think Trump was against this budget until he watched Hannity on Thursday night (maybe Friday morning).

    • #21
  22. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Honestly, did anyone cast a vote for Trump with the expectation that he would press for more fiscal discipline than Paul Ryan?

    A true MAGA budget would be larger, including $25 billion for The Wall, billions for immigration enforcement/deportation personnel, $50 billion for roads/bridges/commuter projects and probably an additional $50 billion for megaproject matching funds.

    Anyone doubt Trump would have traded full federal funding for Schumer’s Gateway Project and a SF transportation hub  for full funding of the Wall?

    Trump would have signed a genuinely conservative budget, especially if included billions for his Wall.

    The GOP couldn’t deliver that.  So he signed the budget they put in front of him and returned to Fox and Twitter.

    And Ryan and McConnell returned to being two of the biggest fiscal phonies in modern American political history.

    • #22
  23. Mike-K Member
    Mike-K
    @

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Expecting any kind of disciplined messaging or consistent strategy for long-term change from Trump is a fool’s dream. This won’t happen with him in charge.

    TDS rears its head.

    • #23
  24. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Mike-K (View Comment):

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Expecting any kind of disciplined messaging or consistent strategy for long-term change from Trump is a fool’s dream. This won’t happen with him in charge.

    TDS rears its head.

    Yes, because in reality Trump is highly disciplined. It’s an interesting show to watch. He has tremendous message discipline, too.

    • #24
  25. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    If Mitt Romney had been president, he could have sent Vice President Ryan to negotiate with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

    President Bush spent like crazy too — “…increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent; increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent; increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent; increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent. …created a massive department of homeland security; signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time; pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will; …got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War; not vetoed a single spending…bill…” — originally attributed to Jonah Goldberg, 2004  (And the Bush-era speaker of the house apparently negotiated in what … in small boys?)

    Trump did speak out against the filibuster (at least for these stupid spending bills).  That’s at least something — maybe.  Not really, but… 

    They all spend like crazy.

    Will the United States ever have a fiscally-conservative president?  I guess not.

     

    • #25
  26. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    The Cloaked Gaijin (View Comment):

    If Mitt Romney had been president, he could have sent Vice President Ryan to negotiate with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

    President Bush spent like crazy too — “…increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent; increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent; increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent; increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent. …created a massive department of homeland security; signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time; pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will; …got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War; not vetoed a single spending…bill…” — originally attributed to Jonah Goldberg, 2004 (And the Bush-era speaker of the house apparently negotiated in what … in small boys?)

    Trump did speak out against the filibuster (at least for these stupid spending bills). That’s at least something — maybe. Not really, but…

    They all spend like crazy.

    Will the United States ever have a fiscally-conservative president? I guess not.

     

    Actually, ending the filibuster for Defense, at least, and arguably Homeland Security, would have the larger effect of splintering the log rolling. No more cover for spending that would not get majority support on its own. Each of the 12 appropriation bills would be exposed to public scrutiny.

    • #26
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.