Dems’ Spending Priorities

Dem's Spending Priorities - Any amount for brown foreigners, not one cent to protect White Americans.
Dems’ Spending Priorities

This aptly sums up the Democrats’ spending priorities. They’re happy to send $10 billion in foreign aid to Central America but refuse to even consider half that amount for a wall at America’s southern border… Mostly because our President wants one and promised to build one.

Then, this is a large part of why the Democrats should be – forcibly, if needs be and it will be needed – removed from office. Their TURDS has reached a point where they are a clear and present danger to others, especially the American people.

I swear, they hate President Trump and the American people, who voted for him and support his efforts to make America great again, so much that they’ve become some twisted funhouse of mirror of Robert Goodloe Harper, essentially saying, “Billions in tribute, but not one cent for defense!” solely because the POTUS is Donald Trump.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Bruenig: Ban Taxpayers

Worthless, Leftist, anti-American hater and valid targetNothing says, “Fuck the Constitution,” quite the demand for censorship and the banning of certain words and/or phrases in an effort to enact some agenda-driven social engineering experiment. Hence, it’s not in least surprising that a Liberal, Elizabeth Bruenig, wants to do exact that. Specifically she wants to ban the use of the word taxpayer(s)” from political discourse and punditry because she feels it’s too divisive.

After lambasting and deriding the Congressional Republicans’ budget for the 2016 fiscal year – for all the reasons one would expect a Leftist to do so – the bint went on to say:

But the plan is also an ideological document meant to advance a particular set of beliefs about how government should function, and toward what end. Its composition and slick rollout (including an upbeat YouTube presentation, a BuzzFeed-esque gif set, and a highly navigable website complete with rolling documentation of news coverage) are meant not only to advance certain policy measures, but persuade voters to adopt its ideological point of view.

Which is why its use of the term “taxpayer”—though hardly atypical of political documents—is notable. In the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.” It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision—and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.

Though addressing people as “taxpayers” is common enough to appear politically neutral, it tends to carry more argumentative weight than it’s typically credited with. The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology. “There are too many scenarios these days in which Washington forgets that its power is derived from the ‘consent of the governed,’” the plan reads in one instance of the term’s use. “It forgets that its financial resources come from hard-working American taxpayers who wake up every day, go to work, actively grow our economy and create real opportunity.” In other words, Americans’ taxes are parallel with taxpayers’ consent, suggesting that expenditures that do not correspond to an individual’s will are some kind of affront. The report goes on to argue that

food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.

Put simply, taxpayers should get what they pay for when it comes to welfare programs, and not be overcharged. But, as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.

Yes, that’s right. Bruenig doesn’t want “Taxpayer” to be used because it inherently differentiates the 53% of the American population with “skin in the game” from the 47% who do not contribute to- but take full advantage of the largess of the federal government. She also has a big issue with the idea that those taxes are monies taken from private individuals and corporations since she doesn’t believe that those people ever owned that money in the first place. Of course, her being a “Christian” Socialist and not believing in private property in the first place, her anti-American attitude is to be fully expected.

Property, rightly construed, can have a salutary social function. But this is only when ownership is premised upon the prior meeting of everyone’s needs. It is also only feasible when property itself, as an institution, is viewed as a means to justice and a tool for serving humankind.

— Elizabeth S. Bruenig

So, as can easily be seen, this cancer of democracy, is one of the ever-present motivating forces, however weak, that seek to advance America through the fatal sequence of the Tytler Cycle. And, if censorship is needed to do that, she’s the sort who will be perfectly OK with that. After all, I doubt that she believes that Americans own their voices either.

To put the worth of her opinion in perspective, however, one must realize that Bruenig also believes  that the problem with modern sex, especially non-normative, outre, or just plain perverted sex, is that it’s not political, and that the biggest flaw of the oft and rightfully lambasted book and movies, 50 Shades of Grey is that it’s pro-capitalism.


Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

2014 QDR Rejected

As legislated by Congress in the 1997 NDAA, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is a study by the United States Department of Defense (DoD that analyzes strategic objectives of- and potential military threats to the US. The Quadrennial Defense Review Report is the main public document describing the United States’ military doctrine, strategies, and capabilities.

For the first time since its inception the QDR report has been rejected. Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee found that Secretary of Defense, Charles Hagel’s 2014 report to not meet the legal requirements for such documents.

I appreciate the work that has gone into this QDR. A rigorous analysis and debate that takes place every four years as the review is put together should be immensely valuable to planners and senior commanders. Unfortunately, the product the process produced this time has more to do with politics than policy and is of little value to decision makers. For that reason, I will require the Department to re-write and re-submit a compliant report. In defiance of the law, this QDR provides no insight into what a moderate-to-low risk strategy would be, is clearly budget driven, and is shortsighted. It allows the President to duck the consequences of the deep defense cuts he has advocated and leaves us all wondering what the true future costs of those cuts will be.

— Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA)
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee

Chairman McKeon’s issues with the 2014 QDR were three-fold: the law requires the QDR to identify resources not included in the Pentagon’s 5 year spending plan yet the report didn’t do so; the 2014 QDR was too shortsighted, looking out only 5 years, instead of the 20 years required by law; and this QDR accepts additional and elevated risks when the law requires the QDR to offer a low-to-moderate risk plan.

Essentially, while the QDR should have been an opportunity for Defense Secretary Charles Hagel to lay out his vision to refine defense strategy and to tell how the Defense Department will adapt the joint force to support that vision, it was instead a political document and, therefor, the House Armed Services Committee rejected it as fundamentally not meeting the legal requirements placed upon this accounting.

Personally, I think this was the right course of action and one that was overdue but not at all surprising in the need for it. As Chairman McKeon has noted, the QDR has become less and less compliant as time goes has gone by. It was past time to fix this issue.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

A Catch-22 SNAFU

Private SNAFUThere is, quite rightfully, a lot of kerfuffle over the Obama Regime’s new military budget which cuts the military to pre-WW2 strength levels. This is a logical and pragmatic fear-based outraged. The world is largely not our friend and a weakened military is not Americans’ ally at all.

On the other hand, this is not the gutting of our defensive strength that it is proclaimed to be. We’re talking about just under a 20& reduction in force over the next 5 years if nothing changes. Hence, the complaint are largely, though by no means entirely, unfounded and spurious.

No, what we have here is the ever-repeating Catch-22 SNAFU. The situation is normal, all fucked up, because it’s normal for circular logic and self-conflicting rules within the civilian political bureaucracy to interfere with the efficient operation of the military. Irrespective of political party affiliation it’s a rarity for any politician to have our nation’s defense as a priority when it comes time for the US Military appropriations budget.

Additionally, reductions in force and realignment of assets is also normal as the priorities and threats shift. As the Obama Regime has: no interest in returning to Iraq; has abandoned Afghanistan; and has no intention of projecting military force to protect or expand American interests abroad, this had to be expected.

It’s really pointless, given the nature of the problem, to argue against these defense cuts on the basis of national security. It, however, is wise to argue against them on the grounds of economics and the horrendous impact they will have upon employment. Financially the proposed cuts by the Obama Regime are historic.  The 2011 defense budget represented 4.7% of America’s GDP; this year’s total will be 2.7%.  In other words US defense spending is set to plummet from $705.6 billion in 2011 to $496 billion, a 30% drop.

So there will be approximately $209 billion less spent upon the military which will in turn mean that defense contractors will be able to earn that much less. This will necessarily cost thousands upon thousands of jobs across the country.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |

How The Budget Is Spent

Once again America is about to be in yet another budget crisis or, at least, we’re about to be in another episode of Reality TV as Congress, Obama, and the various MSM pundits take part in their theatrical production over the debt ceiling.

The Obama BudgetHow The Budget Is Spent

It’s all just kabuki though. The problem is far less about the budget and the amount of spending than it is about who and what is glutting themselves upon the American people’s hard-earned wealth.

It’s not like the government, especially under the rule of the Obama Regime is ever going to starve. The only way we, the People are ever going to end their gluttony is to slit their throats.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |