From “Spending Cuts” to “Spending Reform”

Allahpundit points out what is going to be for many conservatives a depressing poll – boiled down, no one wants to cut anything.  At least, that is, when a pollster asks a question like, “do you want to cut aid to the needy in the United States?”.  To that question, 27% want to increase it, 44% want to keep it the same and only 24% want to cut it.  Like I said, rather depressing to most conservatives.  To me?  Its delightful.  Shows we can easily win this debate and get America back to fiscal rationality.

While you can read it as 71% wanted to keep spending the same or increase it, it also works out to 68% wanting to keep it the same or decrease it.  And here’s the kicker:  government spending never stays the same:  it keeps going up.  Remember, when our Democrats talk about “draconian cuts which will force granny to starve!!!” what they are really talking about is “tiny reductions to the rate of spending growth”.  That is, of course, asinine but we have to face this fact, Republicans:  Democrats have won the debate on “spending cuts”.  “Spending cuts”, because of relentless Democrat lies megaphoned by the by-lined Democrats in the MSM, have come to mean in the public mind, “Republicans want granny to starve”.  Ok, so we lost that one.  No problem.  When you’ve lost a debate the only thing you can do is change the debate.  And, so, no more talk of “spending cuts” but, instead, lets talk “spending reform”.

Getting back to that 44% who want it to stay the same – that is who we’re targeting with spending reform.  These are good, honest, decent people who want to help the poor but who also realize two truths:  government spending is growing too fast and a lot of the spending is not done very well, and so why give more money for government to louse things up with?  We want to drive a wedge between that 44% who want to stay the same and that 27% who want to increase.  That is what spending reform is for.  Here’s how it works:

1.  We pledge no net increase or decrease in government spending.

2.  We pledge that the beneficiaries of government spending will be reserved at least 80% of the government dollars spent on that particular program.

3.  We pledge to increase the benefits for veterans, social security retirement recipients, children’s health care beneficiaries and classroom teachers.

So, we’re no longer going to talk about cutting spending – we’re no longer evil, skin flint Republicans who want the poor to starve. And, in fact, we’re going to ensure that the government dollars go where they are supposed to go, not to favored individuals and groups who have latched on to government spending and aren’t the needy we’re intending to help.  At the end of the day, our spending reform will allow us to re-direct enough money from the powerful leeches who have battened on government that we’ll be able to provide more benefits to those who need it.  Presto!, we’re now the people who are working to provide a helping hand.  Democrats?  They’re the people who want to go on increasing spending in a reckless, unbalanced manner while never ensuring that those who need aid, get it.

Long term, this helps us also balance the budget – because we all know (even Democrats in their cowardly, greedy hearts know it) that a gigantic portion of government spending is entirely wasted.  We might spend $10 billion on a food aid program but you know darn well that a massive amount of it gets spent on things other than food aid to the poor.  It gets spent on layers of un-necessary bureaucrats.  It gets spent on people who are having a rake off as some sort of government contractor.  It simply disappears down a rat hole of unaccounted (because no one is really watching) government spending.  Of any $10 billion in government spending we could probably spend $8 billion and actually give more money to those in need than they are getting now.  After a while, if money is properly used, it will be shown that government spends far more than it needs…that surplus money will start to pile up in government coffers as those living well off government are kicked away from the trough.  And then – when government is in surplus – then and only then can we actually go for net reductions in spending.

A key point to remember here is not to campaign against or carp about anything that smacks of “welfare queen”.  We’re not battling the poor people who have become dependent upon government (other plans and programs will have to be made to wean them off – and that will take two generations to complete, so dependent have some people become), we’re battling those who live well off of government.  All those high paid and entirely un-needed government bureaucrats.  All those who stand between the Treasury and the beneficiary:  that is whom we battle, and that is whom we expose as we campaign on spending reform.  Just a little bit of investigative shoe leather will probably reveal enough examples of over-paid and under-worked government bureaucrats who can be targeted as we shift the debate away from spending cuts and over to spending reform.

Remember, our Democrats (and a portion of the GOP) are just a Ruling Class determined to maintain their personal wealth and power.  Government spending growth is their increasing license to steal and they have been fighting tooth and nail to keep it.  We have to cut out the rug from underneath them and the old campaign against government waste, fraud and abuse coupled with attacks on welfare queens won’t do it.  We need to offer a positive vision of reform:  something which impresses on the mind that we’re not the Party of No but are, instead, the Party of Reform.

This also ties in with my ideas of campaigning for “local control” as well as making a “make/mine/grow” economy.  Intertwined with spending reform will be tax/regulatory reform designed to shift our economy from services and information back to making/mining/growing as well as a freedom campaign to give maximum power to local bodies to determine who government will work.  We’d be thinking in terms of allowing Catholic Charities and other such worthy organizations to provide food aid to the poor, and more of it than they’re getting now, rather than keeping the current layers of bureaucrats who siphon off the money so that, often, only a pittance shows up in the hands of the poor.  Furthermore, this allows us to go in to the bluest areas of our urban centers with a “bag of goodies” to shift those voting habits a bit our direction…remember, eat in to Democrat support in Philadelphia, Detroit and Chicago and Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois come within our reach electorally.

Think anew and act anew – the times call for it.

47 thoughts on “From “Spending Cuts” to “Spending Reform”

  1. GMB February 22, 2013 / 10:13 pm

    Really good plan. Care to name any of the repubs currently sitting in positions of power in Congress who will take up the cause?

    • M. Noonan February 22, 2013 / 11:04 pm


      Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Christie, Santorum, etc, etc, etc. What we on the right are doing is groping for a new way to present our core principals…not to change them, but just to bring them to the American people in a way which captures the imagination and allows us to win at election time. I’m thinking and I’m sure a lot of people much smarter than myself are also thinking. Give it a bit of time – remember, our Democrats were in the slough of despond at this time in 2005…its takes a while for a new configuration to come up. What Democrats eventually did in 2008 and 2012 was to take our game plan from 2000 and 2004 and put it on steroids…but its still a matter of just trying to eat around the edge of each other’s base. I want us to launch a full scale attack on the blue strongholds…not to win the strong holds, but because if we can just drop the absurd 65-70% that Democrats get in the big cities down to 55-60%, we’ll be within easy reach of half a dozen States at election time. But that is going to require a complete re-think in how we do it.

      • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:11 pm


        I really have to question Christie & Santorum plus I know little about Walker. Still, the Right is building a better quorum than before.

      • M. Noonan February 22, 2013 / 11:19 pm


        I exclude no one of the right – not even Christie, who really ticked me off over his slobbering over Obama regarding Sandy (especially as Obama dropped the ball on Sandy relief). But he’s one of ours – he ain’t perfect, but whom among us is? And as it looks as though he will be thumpingly re-elected governor of New Jersey this November, he will be a 2016 player…and a man who can probably deliver New Jersey to the GOP if he’s on the ticket; it is something to consider.

        We’re in the game of expanding our coalition. The only excluder for me is on the abortion issue – because that is a moral issue and if I were to vote in favor of a candidate who wanted to advance the cause of abortion, then I would be committing a mortal sin. Other than that, I’ll listen to anyone who has even a half credible plan to reform government away from the unsustainable “New Deal” model.

      • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:22 pm


        He I have to agree with you on Christie. I am the perfect role model of being imperfect. I will accept Christie as Governor but doubt he has what it takes to be President.

      • M. Noonan February 22, 2013 / 11:30 pm


        Personally, I think he’s made himself toxic for a GOP primary electorate – he’s soft on the 2nd Amendment and he slobbered over Obama. He might play well in the New Hampshire primary, but he’s going to get killed in South Carolina and Florida.

      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 5:30 pm


        , he will be a 2016 player…and a man who can probably deliver New Jersey to the GOP if he’s on the ticket; it is something to consider.

        NO WAY, If we get another mcLame/mittens = fat boy COUNT ME OUT!!!

      • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 6:27 pm


        While it is true that we need a solid, movement conservative to really get things rolling – and that is what I’ll be working for in 2016 – we also have to work with the tools which come to hand. Automatically saying that if Candidate X is the nominee, I’ll sit this one out, merely ensures that we get President Biden. The real key is in Congress, at any event – suppose Christie does get the nomination and thus wins…we know he’s not a fiscal idiot (he’s proved that by his actions in New Jersey) so we know we’ve got fertile grounds for economic rationality…but if we don’t buttress him with a lot more TEA Party GOPers in the House and Senate, then it wouldn’t matter if we managed to nominate the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan…even today, the President may propose, but it is Congress which disposes. Until we get a solid majority in Congress in favor of sane fiscal policy, we’ll never really get anywhere.

      • Retired Spook February 23, 2013 / 7:17 pm

        even today, the President may propose, but it is Congress which disposes.

        If you still believe that, you haven’t been paying attention.

      • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 11:14 pm


        Congress has been disposing by default since the House went GOP in 2010…by means of Reid simply not allowing a regular order for spending bills….which means the periodic “crisis” which has to be solved by some sort of continuing resolution which keeps the 2009 spending levels intact. Boehner insisting upon regular order is an attempt to force Reid to actually do his job – it may not work, but if we can get a GOP Senate in 2014 then Obama can propose all he wants, but he’ll only get what Congress gives him. Winning Congress – especially if we can stuff it with TEA Party-backed candidates, will do more for reforming our fiscal issues than winning the White House.

      • GMB February 24, 2013 / 9:29 am

        “NO WAY, If we get another mcLame/mittens = fat boy COUNT ME OUT!!!”

        Could not agree more. You repubs lost the last two elections throwing “electable” candidates out there. Might as well go three for three, right.

        If the stooges in Congress can’t find the balls to turn the money supply off, eff the repub party and the rinos they rode in on.

        Say hi to President Plugs for me, hey?

      • Cluster February 24, 2013 / 9:41 am

        I am with GMB on this one. I won’t support Christie or any other moderate in 2016. However I still think Romney could have made some great strides in turning this country around.

    • GMB February 23, 2013 / 3:10 am

      “Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Christie, Santorum, etc, etc, etc.”

      It would appear that we have different definitions of “sitting in position of power in Congress”

      As I have have stated previously Jindahl is already growing a horn on his nose. Who knows how big it will be by the time the next election rolls around.

      Santorum is know as a big spender. Rightfully so that is, because it is true. He is no economic savior and everyone knows it. Santorum would more than likely focus on social issues much to the chagrin of folks like Cluster.

      The fat man is a right winger? Shovel + ready = what? 🙂

      Do we even need to talk about barak orubeo?

      The only one who has a chance of being a GOP savior is Scott Walker. He has a history of telling the watsons and vacuum boys to eff themselves.

      How much co-operation would he get from the three stooges who do
      occupy the repub seats of power in Congress? My guess is very little.

      Would be interesting to see how Mr. Walker would pull the rug out from under those jokers.

      • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 3:34 pm


        Indeed, Santorum was a big spender in the Senate…but he appears to understand things better, now. You have to leave room for people to change over time.

      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 5:32 pm

        Do we even need to talk about barak orubeo?

        ROTFLMAO……..SPOT ON,

        can you say tra von?

  2. 02casper February 22, 2013 / 10:33 pm

    You really do have some good ideas. Personally I would support most of them. The problem is there isn’t anybody in power in either party that will support them.

    • M. Noonan February 22, 2013 / 11:25 pm


      That is where you’re wrong – and where you misunderstand the TEA Party movement. I’d say that about 150 House members and 25 Senators understand what is really at stake and have the guts to stand on principal and get it done. These are, by and large, House and Senate members who have, to one degree or another, TEA Party backing. The TEA Party is core, American values being brought back in to the political debate. Limited government, individual liberty, local control. The key to victory is to fuse the TEA Party elements with those who are soft on limited government, individual liberty and local control but who also suspect – correctly – that things cannot go on like this. We have to change – the people know we have to change: Heck, Obama was elected in 2008 because the people perceived the need for change…that he lied to us doesn’t make the honesty of the 2008 vote any less…or any less relevant.

      Especially in people like Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum we have people – though with widely divergent views on the best means to get there – who are thinking deeply about our national crisis and how to resolve it and save our Great Republic.

      • GMB February 23, 2013 / 3:18 am

        150 and 25? Care to share where you got that information. The information that I have been able to find put the numbers of House members that consistently support TEA principles at around 25 and Senators at 3.

      • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 3:27 pm


        Its a guesstimate – based upon some votes over the past year or so when it came down to a vote for the Ruling Class or a vote for the people: about that number has been pretty consistent in favor of the people.

  3. watsonthethird February 22, 2013 / 10:41 pm

    These results perfectly encapsulate what I’ve hammered on many times here, which is that conservatives are in favor of cutting spending and entitlements that don’t benefit themselves, while simultaneously supporting spending and entitlements that do benefit themselves.

    We can look at the more detailed results here:

    More Republicans favor increased Medicare spending than favor decreasing it.

    More Republicans–by a two-to-one margin!–favor increased Social Security spending than favor decreasing it.

    Are these the people you refer to as “those who live well off of government”? They seem to quite like it and want more of it.

    But aid to needy people in the US? You’ve got to be kidding. The mantra seems to be, if I’m not poor, cut support for the poor! If I depend on Medicare, increase it! If I depend on Social Security, increase it even more!

    No one should be surprised.

    • 02casper February 22, 2013 / 11:02 pm

      In the next few hours both of us will be attacked for responding to this post. Neo will call both of us names and will provide a number of links that have nothing to do with the topic. Cluster will call us stupid because we disagree with him. Amazona will write hundreds and hundreds of words about how horrible we are and how she is the only one that understands what the founding fathers really really wanted for our country. Tired will repeat every rightwing talking point he heard on Rush. In other words a normal day on this blog.

      • tiredoflibbs February 23, 2013 / 7:27 am

        “Tired will repeat every rightwing talking point he heard on Rush.”

        cappy you will be interested to know that obAMATEUR was for the sequester before he was against it!!

        It seems that obAMATEUR is trying to blame the Republicans for the sequester. He is trying to get all the political mileage he can for those automatic spending cuts by scaring the ill-informed and the ignorant.

        But, the sequester WAS A BRAINCHILD OF THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

        It appears that obAMATEUR fibbed, I am going to say it HE LIED about the origins of the sequester now and during the campaign. This is not from Rush as you mindlessly regurgitate.

        “Cluster will call us stupid because we disagree with him.”

        That is not the reason why he calls you stupid – a simple disagreement.

        You are being criticized because you are either purposefully being willfully ignorant or it is because you are one of the ignorant low information voters. Either way, you are wrong once again. We can’t expect anything better from a mindless drone.

        “Amazona will write hundreds and hundreds of words about how horrible we are and how she is the only one that understands what the founding fathers really really wanted for our country.”

        She understands them better than you do. Your posts alone prove that.

        “In other words a normal day on this blog.”

        Yes it is another normal day on this blog. You and watty come here and regurgitate the same crap, we prove you both wrong and you whine about it being unfair because you just don’t agree with us and not because you ignore simple and searchable facts.


      • Cluster February 23, 2013 / 9:00 am

        Cluster will call us stupid because we disagree with him. – Casper

        I will remind both of you that by voting for Romney, I voted for reform, thereby voting in favor of limiting my SS and Medicare benefits.

        In addition, nearly every conservative here has said that they would forgo SS and Medicare benefits if all of their contributions were returned. More over, nearly every conservative here has strongly advocated reform in SS and Medicare regardless if it limited their benefits or not.

        Both of you have been around here long enough to know that.

      • Amazona February 23, 2013 / 11:50 am

        I have to say, the teaching profession is quite poorly represented here—that is, if members of the profession want to be seen as honest, intelligent, logical, or capable of processing the written word.

        Not to mention well educated or rational.

        casper, as usual, has nothing to say, but as usual he feels compelled to say it. So what he says here is nothing but whining at the expectation that the vacuity of his posts will, once again, be pointed out.

        First he has to explain that any contradiction to anything he or wattie say will be an “attack”. And not just an “attack” but an attack ON THEM. PERSONALLY.

        And he whines that this “ATTACK” will be specifically just “… for responding to this post. ” But he isn’t “responding to this post”, he is merely whining that if he WERE respond to this post, he would be attacked FOR responding to this post.

        Personally, I didn’t see anything in his snivel that would qualify as “..responding to this post…”—–just the deposit of more of his whining in an area designated for responses to the post.

        I note that casper does not try to argue the validity or relevance of neo’s links—just complains that they are have “…nothing to do with the topic…” This is pretty funny, coming as it does in a post that has nothing to do with the topic.

        He claims that Cluster will call him and his new little special friend wattie “stupid”—a statement that always has a pretty good chance of being true—but then goes on to assert that this will only be “….because we disagree with him..”

        Nah. It will be because you post stupid things, and this leads to the conclusion that you are stupid.

        You seem quite upset that I can and do use a lot of words, and seem to think this is some kind of indictment of me. Of course you can’t address the content of my posts, because you simply cannot refute what I said. So really, all you can do is whimper because you have made the determination that using “hundreds and hundreds of words” is somehow deserving of one of your abundant supply of sneers.

        You go on to lie. That is, that I will use these “….hundreds and hundreds of words…” to, to quote you, explain “……about how horrible we are..”

        Not necessary. Your words speak for themselves, incoherent as they often are.

        And then we come to the core of your pout…..“….how she is the only one that (sic) understands what the founding fathers really really wanted for our country. ..”

        Awww. Poor wittow cappy, bulbous nose all out of joint because it has been pointed out to him, over and over, that he does not understand the Constitution and the context of the founding of the nation.

        Quite predictably, he also lies in this statement, as I never, EVER, claim that I, Amazona, am “……the only one that (sic) understands what the founding fathers really really wanted for our country…”

        Never said it, never hinted at it, never implied it. The statement is simply false. On the contrary, I have made it clear that millions of people “… understand(s) what the founding fathers really really wanted for our country….” —-just that casper is evidently not one of them.

        It is interesting to see an admission that a fact deemed unappetizing by the Left and its mindless minions such as casper is automatically redefined as a “. rightwing talking point….” Not a surprise, just interesting that he would admit it.

        I don’t know if casper has studied Alinsky or just absorbed his tactics through osmosis, being so intimate with other Lefties and all. I’d guess the latter, as we have seen that when casper studies something he gets it wrong. But he’s trying, the poor guy is really really TRYING, to implement the Alinsky tactic of isolating and then ridiculing the opposition. It’s just that casper is so damned darned inept.


        There. 678 words. I went to some trouble to make sure that at least one of your whines was accurate, in that I was careful to use “hundreds and hundreds of words”.

        You’re welcome

      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 5:50 pm

        Neo will call both of us names

        Dumb and Dumber come to mind….Oh Wait!!

    • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:05 pm


      You never seem to surprise me as being an idiot. Self- moniker Republicans may make your case but ask a real person for a change. I am a Libertarian who feels that all entitlement needs review and all overseas spending (paid to foreign countries including Israel) needs to be cut and reviewed.

      MediCare and Medicaid are two different programs; however, the waste is the same. So are the many programs under SS. Do you have a problem with reviewing those systems for waste?

      Better yet, why don’t you climb off your short pony to agree with the vast majority of Americans from all stripes that we are tired of waste of all kinds–not subject to party. Too tough for you? Yep, I “require” we need more shrimp on treadmills and turtle tunnels. I couldn’t live without subsidizing windmills more than evil oil. Apple & FaceBook get great subsides but those are “good” companies. Flat tax is evil.

      Shit Shoot son, you need your head screwed on straight right after it is pulled out of your nether regions.

      Moderator note//sorry DB, can have Casper’s sensitivities being offended.

      • 02casper February 22, 2013 / 11:10 pm

        Hope you don’t feel bad because I didn’t include you. I knew you would have a nasty response, and you even had to use profanity.

      • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:18 pm

        Nasty response? Profanity? Are you worried about “Shit Shoot Son”? Is that your version of profanity? Sorry I curled your eyelashes with my downright nasty posting. Now explain what my “nasty response” “that also jellied your roll” was all about. Try to make a case about what I said (including where I was profane) and rebut it.

      • tiredoflibbs February 23, 2013 / 7:29 am

        db, cappy like watty is a whiner. It does not take much for him to revert to victim mode.

        Proggies are very thinned skin. They have no problem dishing it out but taking it back is typical.

    • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:07 pm

      Oh crap,

      I am sorry I was missed by our educational leader Casper. Please instruct me where I am wrong.

    • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:24 pm

      BTW, Watson,

      You do realize that the “cuts” are not actually cuts but “cuts” against in baseline increase in spending?

    • M. Noonan February 22, 2013 / 11:29 pm


      If the people want their goodies then there is a problem – because there isn’t enough money in the whole, wide world to provide them with all the demanded goodies. Democrats and RINOs simply don’t care – they know full well (unless they are veritable idiots) that the system is about to crash…but all that matters to them is that now, today, they get their money and power. And so they run on a platform of promising all the goodies – knowing two things while they do it: they can’t deliver and even what they will deliver will be siphoned off to themselves and favored cronies.

      Those of us who care about the country have to cut through this morass of self-serving lies some how. My idea is “spending reform”. What’s yours?

      • dbschmidt February 22, 2013 / 11:31 pm

        1950’s level of spending and government. 🙂

    • tiredoflibbs February 23, 2013 / 7:16 am

      ok watty, before you start whining AGAIN, you state that Republicans want to increase spending on SS and Medicare because they want it for themselves?

      Never mind, that these programs are one step away from insolvency. They are about to go broke leaving millions with nothing since the Democrats have cultivated a class of dependence with no other means of support.

      Did you hurt your little rear end by reaching so far up there to pull out your massively spun little conclusion? Naw, you are used to it by now.

      We have been through this over and over and you still regurgitate the same CRAP. Then your buddy cappy comes in and does the same whining and spinning. If you are worried about sequestration cuts and someone to blame perhaps you should look up Woodward’s article on the origins of sequestration. I know you and cappy will be surprised to learn that the whole idea originated in the White House. Presently, you and cappy are doing exactly what obAMATEUR expects and is doing himself – mindlessly blaming Republicans.

      Well those talking points were developed for the likes of you and cappy since you are both mindless drones errrr….. low information voters.

      No one should be surprised at that….pathetic.

    • Amazona February 23, 2013 / 12:04 pm

      Actually, wattie,no one IS surprised at the way you consistently, insistently, restate the truth—-what we call “lying”.

      I suppose your silly rant could be fixed, but that’s like trying to remodel a house that really ought to be bulldozed and replaced.

      “….. conservatives are in favor of cutting THE PROPOSED INCREASE IN spending and entitlements..”

      That is, increases will be approved but the size of the increases will be less than the Left wants.

      And so on. The Left simply cannot make the arguments you make without inventing a false foundation for them. Again, what we call “lying”.

      Lefty Johnny: “I want my allowance to go from $10.00 a week to $20.00 a week.”

      Dad: “No, that’s too much. I’ll raise it to $15.00 a week.”

      Lefty Johnny: “WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAAA My dad just cut my allowance!!”

    • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 5:56 pm

      But aid to needy people in the US? You’ve got to be kidding. The mantra seems to be, if I’m not poor, cut support for the poor! If I depend on Medicare, increase it! If I depend on Social Security, increase it even more!

      No one should be surprised.

      you see that is where you are wrong.
      I feel that churches, charities, personal giving can and should help the poor, it is NOT the governments job to confiscate my families money then decide who gets it.
      My medicare and SS were taken from me and my employer at the point of a gun and threat of a jail cell, I am merely getting back a portion that was stolen in my name.

      typical brain dead marxist useful idiot.

  4. Retired Spook February 23, 2013 / 11:25 am

    A study was done a while back, around 2008, IIRC, that showed that if the federal budget baseline was just frozen and no program was allowed to grow by more than the rate of inflation, the budget would be balanced in 5 years. Bottom line, the solution to our problem isn’t all that complicated. The main missing ingredient is political will, and what amazes me most is that there are so many legislators who don’t seem to give a crap about their kids and grandkids or about the future of the country in general.

    • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 3:32 pm


      There is a great deal of cowardice – which is part of the reason for re-framing the debate as “spending reform” vs “spending cuts”. People have to be lead – even a lot of our “leaders” need someone to lead them. The job of a leader is to get people to do what they are fearful of doing but they know very well must be done.

      Of course, I’m not a leader – but I still write these things when they occur to me. Why? Because I suspect that GOP staffers troll the blogs – more than once over the past 10 years I’ve seen something I write show up in someone’s talking points. Could be that someone just thought it up at the same time, or that they trolled it from someone else’s blog…but I do believe that what I do here has some merit.

      • Cluster February 23, 2013 / 4:56 pm

        It has a lot of merit Mark. Good common sense never goes out of style.

      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 5:43 pm


      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 6:11 pm

        Congrats…..Sir Knight!! 🙂

      • M. Noonan February 23, 2013 / 6:29 pm


        Thanks! Second to getting married, it was the best thing I’ve ever done…after the ceremony sinks in for a day or so, it really does grab hold that now I have a sworn responsibility for just how things will be in our nation. Might not be much I can do as an individual, but I want to do my best.

      • neocon01 February 23, 2013 / 7:09 pm

        liar liar pants……

      • neocon01 February 24, 2013 / 12:21 pm


        IMHO thats where we as a whole get it wrong.
        We ELECT PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT LEADERS!! THESE IDIOTS do not lead me or my family, they legislate with OUR INPUT they REPRESENT US they do NOT LEAD US!!!!


  5. Cluster February 23, 2013 / 9:00 pm

    Here’s Obama’s idea of spending reform:

    ( – Inflation-adjusted per capita federal spending went up $822.90 from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2012, according to official data from the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau. Real federal spending also increased $2437.64 per household between 2008 and 2012.

Comments are closed.