As populist budget plans go, President Trump has delivered one that is certain to make his supporters happy and politicians terrified. For that, he deserves a great deal of kudos. When Nancy Pelosi says things like, “This budget is a really a slap in the face of the future,” she clearly doesn’t understand that it’s a slap intended to hit DC itself.
That’s the good news. This trend of doing the things he promised is arguably the most endearing part of the Trump’s early presidency. He said he was going to build a wall and he’s budgeting for it. He said he was going to boost the military and he’s finding the money in government agencies. As The Hill details:
Unveiled earlier in the day, Trump’s 2018 budget outline attempts to make good on the president’s campaign promise to boost the military and border security efforts while dramatically shrinking domestic programs across almost all other agencies. The proposed reductions include a 31 percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, 28 percent to the State Department, 18 percent to the Health and Human Services Department and 16 percent to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Now, let’s discuss the future. I’ve always been critical of Trump for being a “big government” guy and this budget doesn’t change that criticism. He’s making cuts to pay for things he promised, not because he’s trying to rein in DC. However, it can be used in the future as a blueprint to demonstrate major cuts in departments and agencies will not result in the end of their little bureaucratic worlds. Global warming isn’t going to send hurricanes ripping through Kansas. They’ll have to tighten up their belts, but they’ll survive. Even the agencies and departments that have no reason to exist such as Education and Environment will still continue. They’ll find a way. After all, they’re still running their individual departments with more money than many small countries use to run their entire governments.
This brings us back to the question of whether or not it’s good to up spending on the military and the border wall. As much as I’d like to say that we don’t need to spend the additional money, I can’t. The fiscally conservative principles of Federalism must be applied in stages. That means that the wasteful spending of the past combined with poor tax plans must still be reconciled. The borders need to be secured and the military needs to be brought up to snuff.
The question of whether or not Trump’s populist budget is justifiable won’t be answered this year. We’ll need to see what cuts can be made elsewhere. We’ll need to determine with portion of the administrative state can be killed off altogether. Most importantly, we need to make sure he doesn’t give into his big government leanings and continue big spending after his military and border security promises are fulfilled.
The President is making cuts to initiate his plans. Will he have the discipline to keep cutting and then to stop adding to spending once his projects are compete? If so, the slap in the face the Democrats are describing will only sting them and their big government goals.
When my thoughts first turned to this article, I imagined taking a case-by-case, issue-by-issue approach to demonstrate that government’s role when seen through a Constitutional lens is to empower us rather than to limit us. This was going to highlight through an evidentiary process how this nation can survive and thrive when government gets out of the way and allows the American people to do what we’ve always done: make things happen.
While compiling the ample evidence to present my case, something changed. My mindset shifted from that of a courtroom attorney to that of a physician seeking to diagnose the root cause. This particular study was so easy with evidence so blatant that I started to wonder how in the world we came to this state of being in the first place. Why has government turned into the nursemaid that wakes people up to give them their sleeping pills? When did the people start allowing the government to tell us what we’re allowed to do instead of giving us guidance through laws that tell us what we shouldn’t do? That’s when it dawned on me that I was asking the wrong questions and, perhaps, fighting the wrong battle.
Could it be that the current manifestations of government are the result of a people that generally doesn’t want to do or think for ourselves? Did we create the nanny state because enough of the population demanded more nannies? As you read this, you’re probably thinking to yourself that the answers are obvious, that liberalism has enabled laziness while enabling entitlements to overrun the halls of governance. Were we fed enough lies that we became the problem that we wanted to solve in the first place?
As I looked deeper into everything, I realized that it’s not a one-sided issue. Even conservatives have embraced the nanny state mentality in many instances. They justify it better; I look at Marco Rubio as an example. I liked Rubio even though he wasn’t my first choice for the GOP nomination. One of the things that I didn’t like was his appeasement of the Big Sugar lobby. They’ve supported him since his early days in politics when he was barely known in Florida, let alone to the nation. Since then, he has been one of their biggest protectors, shielding them from the “evils” of free trade by subsidizing them in ways that prevent foreign competition with cheaper and better sugar from muscling into our free market economy. Is he still a conservative? Mostly, yes. Is he still part of the problem? Absolutely.
America was built on innovation and creation on the backs of hard working industrialists striving to continuously improve. However, there were those who took advantage of their power to prevent others from challenging. This is where the need for oversight and protections became relevant and even necessary. From the late 19th- to early 20th-century, income inequality and the power of the “one percent” was so rampant that it would trigger any modern day delicate snowflake into hyperventilation. The people demanded protections. They demanded that the government reach in and do something about it. The government obliged and fought the “robber barons” and “evil industrialists” to make sure that conditions and opportunity were in place for a wider multitude. This was a good thing.
It turned into a bad thing. Safeguards turned into regulations. Oversight turned into audits which turned into direct meddling which turned into the “necessary” bailouts of today. Then, the rich fought back as they’re wont to do. They put more money into influential activists who eventually became lobbyists. When they couldn’t coax the politics in their direction, they bought more politicians. The struggle for money and power took on a life of its own in dark alleys or behind closed doors. Today, influence is still being purchased, but it’s happening in broad daylight. Big Sugar didn’t have to use a proxy to meet with a trusted secret ally of Rubio’s at midnight in an empty parking garage. They filed the proper paperwork, contributed the right amount of money to the right people, and “earned” their subsidies through Rubio’s rise.
Here’s the problem. Whenever topics such as these are brought up, it’s usually on a conspiracy theory forum or on an anarchist’s blog. It doesn’t have to be. This is a topic worthy of mainstream attention, but it’s given next to none. Why? Because to get a full understanding of how it works and why, one must first acknowledge that the system can be fixed. Unfortunately, the system is so interwoven and tightly knitted into every other system (including the 4th and 5th estates) that it’s simply accepted. Those who understand it feel that it’s corrupt but couldn’t imagine a way to take it apart. The majority who don’t understand can curse about corruption and talk about how dirty our politicians really are, but they have no other way to act other than to vent.
If the system of overreaching government, obtuse regulations, out-of-control entitlements, and upside-down tax and spend policies could be unraveled, we could build something that has never been built before: a true capitalistic republic that was driven by innovation and an empowered citizenry. Earlier, I wrote that innovation and creation built this nation, but mending it today and reclaiming our exceptionalism is not possible with the current state of affairs. This is extremely depressing because the advancements of communication and infrastructure that we enjoy today would yield the prime environment for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if we could just get government to allow it. We tasted this prosperity through most of the 20th century, but we got lazy. We got comfortable. We took our eye off the ball and failed to recognize that big government, once thought necessary to protect us, has become our greatest obstacle.
Imagine a government that protected everyone’s opportunity rather than everyone’s well-being. Instead of a nanny state, imagine a state that focused on helping people find and achieve personal goals. Instead of being protected, they could be empowered. Would some people fail? Yes. Would they require help? Yes. Should the government be the one who helps them? In most cases, no. Even the status of our welfare state could be privatized. The industry of caring for others in need has been left to the government and it continues to grow. While the government can provide the final safety net to prevent people from hitting the bottom, every safety net above could be better maintained in the private sector. We can see this very clearly evident in the most liberal cities in the country. The more the government “cares” for the people, the worse off those people tend to be.
Imagine a government that only regulated what absolutely needed to be regulated for the safety of citizens rather than the protection of special interests, a government that reduced taxes and fees on businesses to the point that they could be competitive on any market, whether local, national, or global. Instead of Big Sugar spending money lobbying and contributing to campaigns, what if they put all of their efforts (not to mention the money they didn’t have to pay to lobbyists and political campaigns) into innovation. Instead of relying on subsidies and tariffs, they would be forced to rely on their capabilities. Instead of figuring out how to keep the foreign companies down, what if they figured out how to make better sugar at a cheaper cost?
Whether it’s people or businesses, when the government takes away our ability to fail, they reduce our opportunity to succeed.
These are all topics that would require much more fleshing out than what I can put in a single blog post, but it’s important to understand one thing: none of this can be fixed without two major changes. The first major change is the two-party political system. Conservatives have no home for themselves. We rent a room in over the garage in the GOP’s house because it’s less liberal in general than the Democrats. Sadly, we are seeing a post-conservative Republican Party that still lays claim to the mantle of Reagan, Coolidge, and Lincoln without actually taking advantage of the mantle’s conservative philosophies. We need a new party.
The second major change is that we need an Article V Convention of States. It’s a good thing that there hasn’t been one in the past. Frankly, it wasn’t needed and would not have worked properly. Today, it’s desperately needed. Many fear a Convention of States because there’s a potential for disaster if it isn’t handled properly. The only way that it could work is if the vision of people like Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and Mark Levin could be realized. We need amendments to the Constitution that rein in the federal government. We don’t need to add more restrictions to the people. We need to prevent Washington DC from continuing down the road it’s on.
This is a lot to take in and we’re just scratching the surface. In this strange Presidential election year, most eyes are on one candidate who will destroy us and another candidate who will transform us. Regardless of who wins, we know that government is going to continue to grow. It’s up to conservatives, TRUE conservatives, to stand athwart history yelling, “stop!” Otherwise, these issues big and small that we’re facing in the election will become irrelevant as the nation crumbles under the weight of a government that’s supposed to be covering our flank.
NYC has a problem, how do you pay for all that Police overtime to control protesters lately? The money has to come from somewhere so how do you find a department that can spare the funds?
Lucky for the city such a department has graciously self identified by taking the obsession of this silly woman who apparently has no life:
“Manspreading is when men take up too much room on the subway by spreading their legs in a wide V. Like geese traveling,” explained actress Kelley Rae O’Donnell.
O’Donnell has become an anti-manspreading activist, making stopping the spread a personal mission.
And making it a department policy
Kevin Ortiz with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority says it’s an issue customers have noticed, “and for lack of a better word can be an annoyance.”
“This is an issue that we’ve heard from our female customers about in particular,” he added.
So for the first time the MTA is asking men to mind the gap by putting up posters reminding riders to be more considerate of others.
We must conclude that the MTA has solved all of its issues with safety, mechanical problems, personal legal issues and space because apparently they have no better use for the taxpayer funds than to make sure men do not sit with their legs too far apart on a subway.
It is very kind of the NY MTA to self identify for the sake of the city government and I trust New Yorks and particularly the GOP in NY take advantage of this self-identification to push for the government to relieve them of those excess funds to take care of more pressing needs from policing, to housing for the poor, to children’s issues.
It goes without saying that the next time liberals ask for more money for NYC in congress this example should be mentioned to deny said funding.
Our Fundraising Goal for 2015 at DaTechGuy blog is $22,000 (That’s only $60.28 a day) As of January 5th we are $62 dollars toward that goal.
If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below.
Your enemies always get strong on what you leave behind
Michael Corleone Godfather III 1990
Yesterday there was no story on the web bigger than that of the Image from Barack Obama’s Literary Agent.
As you doubtless already know by now from 1991 till just before he entered the presidential race the agency for Barack Obama’s book in their bio listed his place of birth as Kenya. The agent claims this was a simple oversight, however it would appear none of the other biographies on the site have such glaring errors. As Breitbart’s Big Government says:
The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. Moreover, several contemporaneous accounts of Obama’s background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.
The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama–or the people representing and supporting him–manipulate his public persona.
Yes, this pamphlet to advertise a book that was never written, right alongside a New Kids On The Block book that was written, is obviously another piece in the Obama world-domination jigsaw puzzle. What better way to get your Obamaganda out there than a trade pamphlet that will be read by dozens?
Our friends on the left either don’t want to or don’t care to get the reason why this matters.
We are constantly dismissed as “just bloggers” yet with its “layers of fact checkers” and Corporate infrastructure behind it the MSM should have found and reported this 4 years ago but instead, a blog site with a staff the size of a baseball team did. That of course presumes the mainstream media did not find this and choose to ignore it.
Tim Stanley at the London Telegraph gets it both in terms of the agent’s story:
If we accept that Obama didn’t provide the biography, it would seem highly unlikely that he didn’t get a chance to vet it. Accepting that he didn’t do that either, it’s incredibly strange that the literary agent approached by Breitbart.com does not remember Obama calling the agency to register a complaint and make a correction. My mother spent a lot of her childhood in Grenada. If my literary agent told people I was born in the Caribbean, I’d at least pick up the phone to set the record straight.
and then about the media:
Look beyond the sordid details and the big story here is that this nugget wasn’t part of the wider discussion had back in 2008 about Obama’s background and credentials. And why not? The documents were easy to find – the one that showed that “born in Kenya” was still being used in 2007 was on the Internet.
Bottom line this “vetting series” isn’t about Obama being unfit or unqualified as president, (his record amply demonstrates this for him) it’s about the fitness of the media and left that spent a frantic weekend pouring over Sarah Palin’s e-mail that was, and still is more interested in electing (and re-electing) Obama than doing their jobs.
If the MSM actually acted like, you know reporters, and did the jobs they claim to do, than Rush, Fox News, Drudge, Breitbart and me wouldn’t have one.
That’s why it’s not surprising to see the left swinging at Breitbart, it beats acknowledging their own deliberate failures.
GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE LEFT, Extensive List of +1,000 Groups and How You Pay for Them…
This is a remarkable site with an extensive database of groups, people, categories, and their sources of income which we pay for. It is a searchable site also. Highly recommend you save this most informative source on your hard drive or bookmark for ready reference.
Take a look at a single example from the list:
National Council of La Raza
• In 2009, their total assets were $54,380,430
• From October 2006 to September 2009, La Raza received $11,948,205 in federal grants.
The spreadsheet is more detailed, with nearly 1000 entries such as these winners:
Berkeley Organizing Congregations for Action ……………..$13,796
Gay Men of African Descent ………………………………$1,004,568
Arab Com Center for Economic & Social Services …..$14,142,776
Planned Parenthood (including all affiliates)…………. $363,200,000
And each of those numbers and the 900+ other entries are all SINGLE YEAR NUMBERS.
The list in word format is here and the full spreadsheet is here
This is primary time and I expect supporters for each candidate to fight hard for their choice, but when the convention is over and a nominee is chosen if you feel tempted to sit this election out because your choice was not selected or disrespected, take a good look at this list and remind yourselves what 4 more years of Obama will mean.
Remember we always get the government we deserve and if you choose to give Obama four more years out of petulance, it’s on you.
Democrats had so much hope for the Occupy movement, they were sure they could create their own version of the tea party in time for the 2012 elections
Alas, unlike the tea party that actually attracted previously unengaged voters to their cause, the Occupy movement’s core of professional activists found themselves only able to swell their numbers with union members, paid protesters, clueless college students and those who wanted both a free lunch and an area where law enforcement was non-existent.
The results were predictable.
Not surprisingly as the mess grew so did the rap sheet including deaths, sexual assaults, thievery, drug dealing that has become an embarrassment for democrats who initially rushed to support them. It’s actually reached the point where people are being assaulted for NOT joining the movement.
Not really the cup of tea for a pol seeking re-election is it?
NEW YORK (AP) — The Republican Party and the tea party seemed to be a natural political pairing. But what may have seemed like another politically beneficial alliance — Democrats and Occupy Wall Street — hasn’t happened.
Insert record scratch here.
Sorry AP, but the only reason Democrats see a minefield is because they’re standing in it.
Democrats such as…
…House Democrats. And look, the story about House Democrats endorsing Occupy is an AP story!
When the AP matter-of-factly (the most effective way to propagandize) states that this natural alliance “hasn’t happened” … they are lying. The alliance between Occupy and prominent Democrats occurred weeks ago
And Mr. Nolte has left out Elizabeth Warren a Morning Joe Favorite who embraced the movement at first, but after this ad started running
Yet today on Morning Joe, you would not know this at all. John Heilman, Mark Halperin, Jeffery Sachs and Mika Brzezinski, excoriated Newt Gingrich for suggesting that the occupods need to get a bath then a job. To the Morning Joe/Politico/MSNBC crowd the entire 302 count rap sheet doesn’t exist, the assaults, the cries for socialism, the robberies and the violence, none of these things have happened.
And it not just the rap sheet that is missing, note WHO is missing from today’s show as well. We see SNL skits featuring Jon Huntsman and a pseudo Mitt Romney, we see David Letterman treating Herman Cain in a fashion they would not tolerate for a liberal pol, but strangely no clip from Jon Stewart. Perhaps because Stewart gave the occupod movement a fatal blow among the youth who might have joined in the hopes of being cool or getting laid.
When he gets back to hitting the GOP I’m sure he will return to their link lineup.
It is almost as if the new media and the internet doesn’t exist for Morning Joe today. It brings to mind the old information ministries of the old Soviet Union or even Baghdad Bob assuring us that the Americans are about to be defeated as our troops are just a few hundred yards away.
How and why could this be? It’s pretty simple, the goal today is not to inform, it is to re-assure the niche audience that gets their info strictly from the far left that all is still well. I suspect their efforts will be much like Kevin Bacon’s
And what is the lesson we should learn from this? You likely have already guessed it
While journalists are quick to expose conflicts of interest that could influence political leaders, some often-sympathetic reporters covering the Occupy Wall Street movement might want to look in the mirror.
Those are the journalists belonging to the Newspaper Guild, a national union that represents many journalists in the state, including some at The New York Times.
The Guild is a branch of the CWA, or Communications Workers of America, one of the strongest supporters of the Occupy effort in the nation.
The union’s home page on the Web, for instance, proudly declares, “CWA Supports the Occupy Movement.’
Did you know that not so long ago opponents of the Ground Zero mosque were denied a permit for a protest there? [Emphasis added]
The owner, Brookfield Properties, expressly prohibits tents, tarps and sleeping in the park—rules ignored by the protesters. It also has a history of denying use of the park for political activities, which is within its rights. Last year the city and Brookfield Properties denied a request by a group to use the park to protest against the planned new mosque near the World Trade Center. A content-neutral approach, the cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence, should also have kept Occupy Wall Street out. [Read More]
Since when is the taking over of a public space an exercise of one’s First Amendment rights? And if the Occupiers could do it, why not the anti-Mosque people?
I suspect if they anti-Mosque crew “occupied” the park way back when the Mika Brzezinski would not have been so supportive and the Mayor of NY would not have needed two months to eject them.
County officials this week released a list of 93 complaints of disruptive and illegal behavior near the county’s main offices and courthouse, adjacent to the Occupy Santa Cruz camp.
Since the camp was joined by dozens of tents that belong to the homeless, county workers and others have documented drug and alcohol use, public urination and defecation, littering, bathing in county restrooms, fights and more. Two pieces of artwork on display at the county building were vandalized – although county officials said it is not known who was responsible for it.
Several planned courthouse marriages also had to be moved, deputy April Skalland said Friday.
Saturday April 23rd on DaTechGuy on DaRadio my guest is John Nolte Editor in Chief of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood and contributor to Andrew’s other sites such as Big Journalism.
We will be talking the Wonkettemess, #trigscrew and the media’s reaction (or non-reaction) to that and the Palin speech.
As always you can listen to us live at the WCRN website, and we welcome your calls at 508-438-0965
and remember you can e-mail your comments to the show here
And remember we have the Wesley and Weston report at 6 a.m. Conservatively speaking at 7 a.m. and Carol Ann Brown at 9 and the now resurgent Red Sox with the pregame starting at 8 p.m. so keep that dial right on WCRN all day Saturday.
Oh and don’t forget Next week Join me at Linguini’s Italian Eatery at 1 p.m for a post show lunch and round table featuring YOU.
Update: BTW if you aren’t familiar with the Trig story check out this great piece by Susannah Fleetwood who NAILS it:
Every liberal entertainer, professor and pundit that most liberals respect call Republicans “teabaggers” and “racists”, say horrific things about Sarah Palin, and even spread internet rumors about her son not being hers, or her husband sleeping with her daughter (and yes, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are both mainstream liberal figures–they are not the fringe). Therefore, many of them don’t know anybody who thinks that this is unacceptable behavior, so they assume that “everyone is doing it” or would approve of it.
For reasons currently unknown the first minute of the show or so was cut off of the recorded file, I do apologize.Update: Three Cheers for Tony the engineer who found my missing minutes, the show is now fully there!
The mainstream media has treated accusations of large-scale fraud in the Pigford settlement with overt skepticism and a distinct lack of journalistic curiosity. The press has blindly repeated the Obama Administration’s claim that there are only a handful of fraud cases among the twenty thousand or so paid Pigford claims. Worse, the media has helped promote the narrative that those raising concerns about fraud in Pigford are racist.
You’re about to watch a video clip where Othello Cross, an attorney for Pigford claimants with about fifteen years of experience on the case, admits that he is personally aware of hundreds of cases of fraud in the state of Arkansas alone. Furthermore, he explains how easy it was to commit that fraud and receive a $50,000 check from the government; it’s appropriate to deduce from Cross’s revealing statement that the actual number of fraudulent claims is likely much higher than the hundreds he knows about.