« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

It’s Pretty Much Our Own Fault.

From the diaries by Jeff

As a friend of mine recently put it, I join the gentleman from Texas’s remarks, and know that I cannot surpass them. I would, however, like to add something to them.

Any honest reckoning of the budget deal the House GOP appears to have reached must view it as a result of negotiations in which one side — the Democrats — believed they had the upper hand, and the other — the GOP — agreed. From the start, the brain trust that nominally holds the majority in the House made clear that they would brutally knife their own mothers to avoid a shutdown, because the memory of the last is burned into their pathetic neurons for all of time, and they believe they’ll suffer the way the last Republican majority did. I don’t believe that’s an accurate assessment of the likely fallout of the shutdown the submorons on the Hill clearly felt they needed to avoid, and I’ll discuss that, but we all need to remember: This is our fault, yours and mine, and every activist’s and voter’s who helped these clowns get elected.

That’s sort of counterintuitive, isn’t it? It isn’t, if you think about it.

In 2006, most of the same cretins currently patting themselves on the back for convincing yet another Republican constituency not to show up for the 2012 elections were chosen by the House GOP to bravely march the caucus into a giant punji pit. After the bloodletting that year, chastened by their losses, the House GOP promptly … re-elected the same group.

After bumbling their way through the TARP debate — Eric Cantor covered himself in glory by wasting time proposing that TARP be structured as insurance, sort of like selling homeowner’s insurance to the guy whose house is a four-alarm blaze — and taking the Palin-reinvigorated McCain campaign into the toilet with them, thus managing to take more losses in the House and damn any chance at a Presidential win, the House GOP … re-elected the same group.

But! Chastened by their repeated drubbings, shown by the Tea Party that the same-old, same-old could not continue, knowing in their hearts of hearts that they weren’t being given the majority so much as the Democrats were having it taken away, the House GOP boldly set out to forge a new path by … re-electing the same group.

And guess which group of chuckleheads kept working for, fundraising for, doorknocking for, and oh yeah, voting for, the Mensa subset on the Hill? If your monitor isn’t backlit, you can probably see their reflections in the surface of what you’re reading.

So! We sent a group of frightened boys into negotiation with things that look and act like men, including Nancy Pelosi. And look at the results. Show of hands: Who’s surprised?

Oh, they say: No. This is just the first step. Look at these cuts! They’re real cuts! (Sorta.) And now we can move on to important things, like the FY2012 budget and … other stuff, on which, this time, we won’t cave, Honest Injun.

Let me tell you why that’s horsehockey.

To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, the story of modern democracies is the left’s consistent turning of a screw into our collective gut, and when the right takes power, we don’t unscrew, we just hold the screw in place while we bleed to death. Each budgetary negotiation is not a discrete act, but is rather a process of setting the baseline for the next round.

In an ideal world, realizing that the public is, for the first time, actually seriously concerned about spending, and knowing that, inter alia, the House GOP would have gone in and told the Democrats that they were welcome to shut down the government to protect funding babykillers and to keep bleeding the Treasury dry, but they’d have the albatross around their necks for it. Would the Democrats have blinked? Good question. Their cretins believe that Bill Clinton won in 1996 because of the shutdown. (The ambivalent effects on Congressional seats are a bit more attenuated in their “minds.”) Would our message have prevailed? Also a good question. The mainstream media would have played this as “Republicans shut down the government to deny women mammograms,” but this isn’t the Nineties. We have different message channels than we used to, and anyone who doubts that need only ask if the words “death panels” would have entered the public lexicon if the New York Times had anything to say about it.

Instead, surprise! We gave up virtually everything for total cuts less than at least some Democrats publicly announced they would have yielded.

(But the troops! The troops wouldn’t have been funded!

Bzzt. No. The House GOP had the option to make their funding a separate bill, decided to play chicken with the troops’ paychecks, and then veered.)

So you say, but we’ll get them in FY2012! Let me ask you a serious question: Why on Earth would you think those negotiations will end differently? The House GOP just put a giant KICK ME sign on its collective rear. This negotiation is the baseline for the next, which unfortunately doesn’t mean bigger-and-better cuts, it means the Democrats know that they need only hold out until the next shutdown looms (or pick your crisis, really) and they know that the spineless weenies will cave in no time flat.

This is a war. We just ceded enormous ground in the first, pivotal battle because we were worried that we may lose other positions. Our troops are going to ask, not unreasonably, if our army couldn’t be bothered to advance the primary goal for which they were sent into the field, why we should think they’d bother with the others.

That is the hill on which we should be willing to die: Getting this monstrosity of a hole we’re leaving our children and grandchildren under control, even if it just means stopping the digging. Making the Democrats take ownership of funding with public money the murder of the unborn. Proving ourselves serious and committed and willing to take a knife in the chest to slice the other guy’s carotid (or femoral or whichever artery you prefer), knowing that knife will hurt but the other guy is gonna be on the edge of death for a long time after.

But: Blink.

COMMENTS

  • audax

    http://www.redstate.com/audax/2011/04/10/republic-began-with-four-federal-departments-our-opening-negotiating-position-for-next-budget-cuts/

    Our Federal Republic began with just four Federal Departments. Anything else was left to the individual States to worry about. The Four Departments and their Secretaries where:

    State, Thomas Jefferson, Secretary
    Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary
    War, Henry Knox, Secretary
    Post Office, Benjamin Franklin, Post Master General (responsible for Transportation, i,e, Post Roads)

    Thats IT! That?s all we need, except for the Post Office! We don?t need that anymore, private enterprise can do it better and cheaper!

    So, here is where we can begin budget cutting up to $1.866 Trillion in the next Federal Budget. These numbers from the 2010 Federal Budget.

    $78.7 billion (?1.7%) ? Department of Health and Human Services. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $72.5 billion (+2.8%) ? Department of Transportation. This was in the Post Office Department i.e. Post Roads in the First Federal Government but as our Republic has evolved should now be the provenence of the individual States. CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $47.5 billion (+18.5%) ? Department of Housing and Urban Development. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $46.7 billion (+12.8%) ? Department of Education. This should go back to the individual States where it belongs. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $42.7 billion (+1.2%) ? Department of Homeland Security. If there was EVER a waste of funds, this is it! Important parts to the Department of Justice (i.e. The FBI) or Department of Defence.

    $26.3 billion (?0.4%) ? Department of Energy. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Nuclear stuff to department of Defence.

    $26.0 billion (+8.8%) ? Department of Agriculture. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! If individual Staes feel they must ?help? their farmers, then let them.

    $18.7 billion (+5.1%) ? National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let private enterprise explore space if they feel there is a profit motive in it.

    $13.8 billion (+48.4%) ? Department of Commerce. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let State Department handle any ?important? areas that need to be covered.

    $13.3 billion (+4.7%) ? Department of Labor. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $12.0 billion (+6.2%) ? Department of the Interior. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! SELL OFF Federal lands or give to individual States.

    $10.5 billion (+34.6%) ? Environmental Protection Agency. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Let individual States handle how they keep their State clean.

    $7.0 billion (+1.4%) ? National Science Foundation. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $5.1 billion (?3.8%) ? Corps of Engineers. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Transfer back toMilitary, the Military functions, then let individual States handle anything else.

    $5.0 billion (+100%) ? National Infrastructure Bank. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $1.1 billion (+22.2%) ? Corporation for National and Community Service. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $0.7 billion (0.0%) ? Small Business Administration. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $19.8 billion (+3.7%) ? Other Agencies. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $105 billion ? Other. WHAT IS THIS??? CUT!CUT! CUT!

    $571 billion (?15.2%) ? Other mandatory programs. Are these in the Constitution? If not, CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $453 billion (+6.6%) ? Medicare. Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    $290 billion (+12.0%) ? Medicaid . Where is this in the Constitution? CUT!CUT! CUT! Individual States can decide what is best for the taxpayers of that State.

    Once we turn these programs over to the individual States and get the Federal Government OUT of areas they have no Constitutional business being in, then we can ?negotiate? from there?.

    • AceInTX

      To paraphrase Maggie Thatcher, the story of modern democracies is the left?s consistent turning of a screw into our collective gut, and when the right takes power, we don?t unscrew, we just hold the screw in place while we bleed to death.

      This is on of those things you know deep down and can’t come up with a way to describe it adequately…this is absolutely dead on!

      • acat
        • AceInTX

          yet one more indication of her greatness

          • acat

            You know, the one that goes something like “The trouble with socialists is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples’ money”…

            One more similarity between Thatcher and Reagan.

            Mew

  • pantera

    look…until the repubs get ll 2 branches it will be miniscule victory’s.
    2010 was the 1st wave. 2012 lets have a follow up wave. the new guys being voted in ARENT the same ole guys.

    spectators wondering why player bunt instead of just hitting a home run.

    • avgjo

      The GOP has the House. The House initiates appropriations legislation. They set the parameters for what the libs can and can’t vote for. The Senate and president can moan and groan all they want, but if the House holds firm, the dims’ choices are limited. The House didn’t hold firm, so the dims got what they wanted. Babies are still being murdered on your dime and mine. The EPA will run roughshod over congress and over us. And Obamacare is still being implemented. Pelosi came out yesterday or today to say that the anti-Net neutrality legislation passed by the house is going nowhere; now that the dims have seen that our idiot representation in DC will fold, they have been emboldened. Expect more of this as time passes.

      As to the argument that ’12 is when we’ll win…?! Do the folks pushing this meme realize that the cowardice of Boehner and Cantor has probably made the decision for many, from social conservatives to fiscal ones, to stay home next voting season? When you make it clear to your base that you care more about what the other side thinks, that’s not a real good way to motivate them to support you. Besides that, if they can’t handle this relatively small battle with any courage, what on earth makes anyone think that they’ll show any courage in an election year?!

      • glorious

        same old same old. Mostly meaning I am tired of being a Republican. What to do? I never thought I would consider not voting, but I might not. I NEVER thought I would take Trump seriously, but he’s looking better than these jokers. PLEASE—-let’s let them know we are NOT NOT NOT falling for it or standing for it.

        • glorious

          same old same old. Mostly meaning I am tired of being a Republican. What to do? I never thought I would consider not voting, but I might not. I NEVER thought I would take Trump seriously, but he’s looking better than these jokers. PLEASE—-let’s let them know we are NOT NOT NOT falling for it or standing for it.

        • sowa1

          If people do not vote, Obama will win and it won’t take him long to jump to the far, far left. He will not have to worry about re-election. The Republicans did a great job cutting way more that the 38.5 B. Closer to $50B. Because of the over the top spending by the Democrats we are now in terrible trouble. 2012 hopefully will change Washington. Republicans will take the win the Senate and White House. Remember————-if you give the House back to Dems you get PELOSI. Yuck

      • rpopp23

        If the all that matters is the House, why do we work so hard to elect Conservatives in the Senate and for President? All 3 matter. The bills start in the House, but they don’t finish there.

        Whether we like it or not, the Dems DO control the Senate and the President, and we must work with them for now. In 2012 we can change it so that we DON’T have to work with them. If Conservatives stay home because of this deal, it is their fault.

        Let’s be honest, we are all sitting in the cheap seats, and like to think we know all that is going on. We don’t, even in today’s instant reporting world. Our team has a new manager and a bunch of new players, and it is early in the season. Let’s at least give these guys until the All-Star break before we write them off. If they don’t perform down the road, we can change. But we hired these guys based on their vision. Let’s not second guess them yet.

        Have a little patience – not a LOT of patience – we do have major challenges – but the leaders have said that this agreement will lead to better things down the road. Let’s at least let them play out their plan. If it falls, again we have options. I for one, think it is just a bit early to write them all off.

        • avgjo

          it is all that we hold and (b) how the GOP uses it will go a long way in determining whether the American people entrust them with more control of government. And again, by starting the legislation, if they are stalwart, the GOP can limit what the dims can and can’t vote on/sign. They aren’t, and so they allow the dims to set the agenda.

          Your point about patience is a fair one and I take it well. But the problem is that the GOP has a strong history of wimping out and of saying one thing in the campaign and doing another once they’re elected. And what they did Friday seems to fall into this pattern, and it is for this that I fear many will stay home. I won’t because I don’t want Obama to have four more years. But history has shown that many, especially social conservatives, will stay home if they feel they have been used. It was house republicans that put PP funding in the spotlight. And then they folded on it. Babies are still being murdered on the taxpayers’ dime. And if this isn’t resolved well before Nov. 12, history will repeat itself, i fear.

      • dac6803

        We have to remember, the dems started at ‘zero’ while we started at $61B. So on that basis how can anyone say we blinked? We more then split the difference, missing the target by 0.08% on the proposed 2011 budget total.

        Remember the story of the young bull and the old bull on top of the hill looking down at all those cows…… walk don’t run and save your strength to take them all on!!!

        Relax, it ain’t over till the fat lady sings!!!!!!!

      • ssshannon1026

        is the best strategy for conservatives, at least in relation to the federal government. We waste so much of our powder trying to win battles by throwing ourselves against the center. We will never have the force needed to take and hold the center. I think the only plan to win is to flank the progressives by winning at enough state and local governments that we can provoke a constitutional crisis that will ultimately over turn all of the progressive agenda.

        • 2warabnvet

          Boehner and his RINO ilk are striving diligently to turn the Republican Party into an irreverent third party. I simply cannot understand how Republicans have forgotten so quickly how McCain failed to win the conservative vote. Now, at a time the Tea Partiers are crying out for responsible government, they all want to act like little McCain?s. It looks like we’re faced with either the Democrats ?socialism now? or the Republicans ?socialism a little more slowly?. So much for my hopes last November.

        • avgjo

          This will only ensure 4 more years of Obama. The problem for us is that all this stuff is not happening in a vacuum. IF conservatives were to stay home in ’12, then Obama and his cohorts get four years to put a stake thru the heart of our country.

          That’s precisely why I am so angry at Boehner and the others right now. What they did will probably cause lots of folks to stay home, and that will destroy this country. I wish to God people didn’t respond this way, but that’s what they often do. That’s what got us Obama in the first place, when many sat home in protest to a RINO candidate.

          Please don’t entertain this idea. Fight. Hold the GOPs feet to the fire. But for heaven’s sakes, please don’t stay home.

          • ssshannon1026

            would at least be merciful.

            And, it would probably only really mean an end to the progressive left. The rest of us could just dust off the constitution and take back up where we left off. I really do find myself wondering how necessary this fight actually is. Its like an endless game where each side lets the other win just enough to keep it alive so the game can go on. Let it end, for the love of God, let it end.

  • avgjo

    I especially appreciate you not trying to sugarcoat what happened Friday, like many here are. Them doing that is to me the equivalent of adding a couple of teaspoons of sweetener to old tuna salad.

    I am curious, what specifically do you propose we do about it?

    • reddog53

      Yes, it’s true that the cuts were minimal…but the federal government is a large, amorphous and ponderous beast; it can’t be turned on a dime.

      In order to reverse direction, you must first stop the motion in the direction you are headed, and that’s what these cuts accomplished. Even the President is now talking about reducing the deficit, which is far different than where we were a month ago?

      All these childish names flung at the Speaker and the Majority Leader only serve to make us indistinguishable from the DailyKos kids and other fools.

      Teddy Roosevelt’s famous aphorism about the ‘man in the arena’ applies to Speaker Boehner. He was there, doing his best and he got something done. There are a thousand critics, mostly from our side it seems, who think that he should have done better. Perhaps he should, but we are where we are.

      Deal with it and keep fighting. There seem to be a lot of military analogies here, so remember Washington’s lack of progress early in the Revolution.

      Keep the faith, and try to point your weapon at the other side.

      • avgjo

        I go to Kos and HuffPo on a regular basis to learn how the other side thinks. I haven’t seen a name here that even approaches what those nuts use on people they get mad at. So sorry, but that comment about the (accurate) comments re: Boehner making us indistinguishable from Kos et al. is not correct.

        The difference between Washington and Boehner is that (a) Washington was not fond of weeping in front of people and (b) Washington had guts.

        I am curious, what makes you think after this capitulation Friday that these clowns can do any better?

        • reddog53

          Enough already…

          • avgjo
      • floatingrock

        “but the federal government is a large, amorphous and ponderous beast; it can?t be turned on a dime. ” -RedDog53

        Budget’s are not battleships; they have no mass. All it takes to turn a budget around “on a dime” is the will to do so.

        • reddog53

          The federal budget is not something that gets switched around easily…

          Defunding and eliminating the Department of Education sounds like a terrific idea (and it is…) but the civil service rules in place today make doing so in less than six months virtually impossible, so the personnel still get paid, and the costs still accrue. Same goes for all the other departments. If by chance, Congress provided some dispensation to make this go faster, the next thing that would happen is that the civil servants would begin hitting unemployment lines, raising those costs “unexpectedly.”

          Contracts put in place can be terminated, but even that takes weeks of going through the process to do so and then processing claims that arise from companies and their contracts being terminated. It will cost money to do so.

          Grants given to states and localities can be terminated, but again that takes some effort and time that requires payment;

          There is no free lunch here. The best course of action is to change the budget that doesn’t yet exist — 2012 and 2013 and years after that. This is more easily done, but still not ‘a piece of cake,’

          • floatingrock

            …just stop paying them and they’ll stop coming to work. Hold an auction to sell off the assets and use the proceeds to clean up the mess.

            Seriously, though, your argument is a strawman because keeping your promise to cut $100 billion wouldn’t have involved any of that.

          • reddog53

            ‘just stop paying them,’ even meant in jest shows that you aren’t being realistic.

            My argument isn’t a ‘strawman’ …it was meant as an explanation of the process. And the process is that budgets are meant to be voted on and decided well before the FY starts, in order to give the mechanisms that are in place by law, a chance to work.

            Keeping the promise to cut $100B by the end of the FY would have meant actually cutting more in order to save that much by the end of all the paperwork. Saving $100B in a year can be done by saving $25B in each quarter; if you wait until the year is half over, you have to cut $50B per quarter in the time remaining, because money for salaries, utilities, travel, etc has already been consumed in the first six months.

          • floatingrock

            You guys should have kept your promise. It’s a minuscule amount to cut, to suggest otherwise is simply pathetic.

          • floatingrock

            Then why did you make it?

            Answer: to fool people into voting for you.

          • reddog53

            and as I said, it’s not impossible to keep – it just needed to start earlier, which the House did by passing their bill in the first week of the session in January.

            You’re sounding more and more troll-like, so I’ll let you slip back under the bridge.

          • floatingrock

            you are defending the fact it was broken.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Especially since we still have all of the actual upcoming budget to hammer (obviously, we use this current agreement as the new baseline for the new target).

            :holding up hand: Stop. This is an intelligence test; and while I fully expect you to flunk it even with this warning, far be it from me to not give you a chance.

            Ignoring this post will be graded as a “fail.”

          • floatingrock

            What $78 billion? Are you talking about funnynumbers?

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            OK, for the benefit of everybody else: let me explain what happened here.

            The late floatingrock was trying to pull a fast one here by arguing that the GOP’s 38.5 billion’ worth of cuts from the 2010 baseline represented a horribly broken promise, since they called for 100 billion. Small problem with that argument: when the House reissued that promise with regard to the CR situation, it was misreported as being only 61 billion. It was actually $100 billion, because that promise used as its baseline Obama’s proposed budget, which called for increased spending of around $40 billion. So if you’re going to complain about the $38.5 billion in cuts – and use the House’s February promise to justify it – please include the $40 billion that they used to make that argument in the first place.

            “But, Moe!” I hear you all say. “So what if they used a budget gimmick in the CR! I want that $100 billion that they originally promised me!” …OK. The thing there is, they originally promised you that for the upcoming budget. At the time that the Pledge to America was written, it was not actually expected that the Democrats would give us the opportunity to hack at 2010′s spending. Surely they would have gotten that in under the wire, given that we would… well, hack as much money out of it as we could. And did.

            So, there’s your options: if you want to complain that $78.5 billion ain’t as good as $100 billion, go you. Politics, sausage, you don’t want to see either made. But $78.5 billion is still considerably more than $38.5 billion, even if it makes your argument also considerably weaker. And if you want to go back to the original promise, also go you. We have yet to have that struggle, after all – which means that no promises have been actually broken yet.

            Please note that ‘you’ is, at this point, generic. Obviously.

          • floatingrock

            blows credibility right out of the punch bowl.

          • aesthete

            They tried toying with cutting select politically sensitive programs piecemeal to appease the base, and got burned by it. Certainly, funding for PP and NPR should be stopped, but they’re a diminishingly small portion of the budget: they should have been rolled into a set of more substantive cuts. Bad strategy is at least as much to blame here as a general lack of will.

          • clowngirl

            Reid committed hard on saying their only opposition was to the riders on the bill– so all that was necessary was to withdraw that requirement and the Democrats would have to agree to the requested cuts.

            But then, I’m saying that as someone who is fairly happy with the deal. Obviously there’s a long way to go and this is just one small step, but I think it was a solid victory.

            A lot of folks are expressing disappointment – it should’ve been more, etc. Ok, but how would a better deal have been acheived?

            Some seem disappointed that there was no shutdown. I sort of get that, in a way — not wanting our elected Representatives to settle— but I’m really unclear on how anyone thinks allowing the government to shutdown would help. Shutting down the government would likely hurt the general public quite a lot — but I’m not clear how it would hurt Democrats.

          • Kyle-MI

            but that is the truth. The Dems failed to pass a budget when they were in control. The GOP controlled House passed a budget, but the Dem controlled Senate voted it down and Obama, the Dem, threatened to veto it. Under these circumstances, who is doing the shutting down?

            Of course, it does not help that a vocal minority on our side was screaming at the top of their lungs, “shut it down.” The paradox of the shutdown strategy is that, no matter how much we want it, it must be set up so that the other side does the shutting. No matter how well it plays to the hard core, it does not play well to swing voters – those who have not strong political leaning, who generally do not pay attention, and who decide more based on feelings. Any group who owns a shutdown, at least a complete shutdown, looses the swing voters.

          • slimmu

            as not significant in terms of actual numbers to the budget and so it came off as cultural, right against left, attack. At that point they lost the narrative and a shutdown would have been viewed as their fault.

          • aesthete
    • alreadyexists

      Some believe that the US will muddle through this financial crisis simply because we are the most productive and prosperous nation in the history of the planet. Others believe that this crisis is uniquely different and the hole we’ve dug is so deep that we cannot possibly get through this without a major dose of social upheaval.

      No matter which of these scenarios may be true, lifelong politicians in Washington DC are absolutely certain that getting re-elected is the right answer to every problem. Such is the explanation for the most recent budget charade.

      There is no point is whining about the perpetual disappointment of the political class, but there is an effective counter-strategy. Every Republican who voted for this fiasco should be facing a primary or third party challenge in the upcoming 2012 election. And if you think this budget compromise was a good deal, just wait until the real inflation rate rears its ugly head later this year. When that happens, pissing and moaning won’t fill your gas tank.

      • Thomas Crown

        That’s not merely not what this site is about — that was one of our earliest ground rules here — but it’s also counterproductive and a gigantic, time- and money-sucking waste of time. Primary them as needed; spare the black hole of third parties.

        • alreadyexists

          It’s usually best to keep all your options open and then be judicious about when to employ them. For most of the big spending RINOs, a primary challenge is the right tactic. However, for a select few who are very senior and hence disproportionately destructive, the third party option may be the most efficient way to send them packing. I can think of at least a half dozen highly placed RINOs that we can do away with and still keep the majority. This would also free up room at the top for new blood and real leadership.

          • Thomas Crown

            I’m no longer a moderator here, but one of the ground rules we established early, and to which the site hews to this day, is an absolute ban on advocating for third parties. I don’t have the power to formally warn you, but as a piece of friendly advice, I’d holster that gun. It might go off on your leg.

            On the substance of your point, those folks are well-entrenched for a hundred reasons, none of which will make a third party candidate any likelier to succeed than a primary challenger. There are precisely two Congressmen who do not belong to either party, and both are Senators who caucus with the Democrats. The logistics, fundraising, and name appeal of third parties is so vanishingly tiny even in highly contested districts that they are vanity projects with, and I just checked this, not a whelk’s chance in a supernova of ever winning. They are time and money sucks. They are wastes of time. Advocating for them is no less a waste of time. This is about changing the game, not feeling better at the cost of time and energy.

          • 4suramcan

            is because of the complacency, apathy, and ignorance of many of the American people.

          • alreadyexists

            I do not advocate that a third party candidacy has a realistic chance of success within the two party system, and by extension believe that third party candidates are likely to win a seat in Congress. However, there have been many races where a third party candidate has drawn enough votes to tip the balance and pay a decisive role in the outcome. For example, thank God that Ralph Nader drew all those votes from Al Gore in Florida in 2000.

            The leadership of the Republican Party undersells the destructive impact of RINO committee chairmen who surreptitiously promote big government spending (read earmarks) and then also undermine genuine reform. As demonstrated in the last post-election leadership assignments, seniority is everything, even when the likes of a Hal Rogers is misplaced as chairman on a key committee.

            If a strong third party candidate could be decisive in dumping a few of these albatrosses, then I say “so be it.”

          • Thomas Crown
        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          Mr. Crown, could you please explain, specifically, how to “primary them?” What, exactly, should we, individually, do to “primary them?”

          Thank you.

          ColdWarrior

          • Thomas Crown

            Or perhaps read the context of a comment before trying smartassery. Either would be a good first step.

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            Again, could you please explain, specifically, how to ?primary them?? What, exactly, should we, individually, do to ?primary them??

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            Looking forward to your guidance.

            Sincerely,

            ColdWarrior

          • Thomas Crown

            You either didn’t bother to read the comment to which I was responding, thereby depriving you of vital context; cannot read that comment, with the same result; or you think you are being terribly clever, which, absent that context, only makes you look like a horse’s rear, and a dim one, to boot.

            If you go ahead and reread the comment that preceded the comment off of which you decided to try to score points, if you’re doing this in good faith, you’ll go, “Golly gosh gee, I didn’t understand what he was saying. Boy, I feel as batpoo stupid as a Birther from Ohio. I’ll just let this go now.” If you’re not in good faith, there’s a not insignificant likelihood you’ll think you’re avenging a round of underwater unchaining, and continue.

            You don’t seem like a total imbecile, so I’m wagering with myself you’ll take option number one. I’m a sucker for suckers, though, so there’s a decent chance I’m wrong. I’m cool either way.

          • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

            Could you please explain, specifically, how to ?primary them?? What, exactly, should we, individually, do to ?primary them??

            I have a few concrete suggestions that I’ve laid out here at Redstate over the last couple of years. They involve personal involvement inside the Republican Party by each of us. I’m not an expert by any means. I was hoping I, and the rest of the Redstate visitors, might learn what, exactly, you meant when you said, “primary them.”

            My limited experience in recruiting people into the Republican Party as precinct committeemen (which allows people to, for example, vote for the officers of the Party and, as long as the bylaws allow, vote to endorse candidates in the primary elections — a powerful tool) tells me that many people don’t know how to “primary them.” Indeed, in the last two and a half years or so, as I have recruited conservatives to become precinct committeemen, I often get this question asked of me, by young and old alike: “What’s a precinct committeeman.”

            I was hoping you might enlighten us based on your experience, which of course is unique and differs from everyone else’s, how, specifically, you believe we ought to “primary them.”

            You said my questions constituted “smartassery.” I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t know why you took offense to fair questions. My questions were just that: fair questions. Regardless, you haven’t answered them.

            And if you don’t have any specific strategies and guidance to offer, so be it.

            Thank you.

            ColdWarrior

          • Thomas Crown
    • 6eorge Jetson

      nt

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Tripled deficit, doubled unemployment, debt going through the ceiling, the slow sliding off of the beam of the GWOT… I could go on.

        • 6eorge Jetson

          Specifically, I was referring to avgjo’s language in the post above

          As to the argument that ?12 is when we?ll win??! Do the folks pushing this meme realize that the cowardice of Boehner and Cantor has probably made the decision for many, from social conservatives to fiscal ones, to stay home next voting season?

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            NT

          • avgjo

            I certainly wasn’t advocating that we stay home in ’12. I simply pointed out that that’s what people do in these situations and that’s why Friday night’s capitulation by the GOP was such a terrible thing for them to do. In no wise, either implicitly or explicitly did I tie this observation with a proposal for specific action.

  • Tbone

    George W. Bush.

    Imagine getting elected President and finding out your team was comprised of fools, clowns and cowards.

    One thing about Boehner & Company, they take all their casualties in the back.

    Anyone who thinks these guys will win would have bet on Poland in ’39.

    • aesthete

      at being surrounded by cowards and yes-men who let him do whatever he wanted.

      C’mon, Tbone, the “deficits don’t matter” President didn’t even try to cut government spending or regulation. Let’s not pretend like poor ol’ Bush was just overwhelmed by all those meanieheads on the Hill; he wanted big spending and said so throughout his 2000 campaign. Bush had no more intention to cut spending than Obama did to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, or to roll back the PATRIOT Act.

  • vamoose

    This is always a dangerous assumption. I don’t happen to believe things are all that different than in 1995. The MSM would have made sure Republicans were blamed, and at a time when blaming Bush was wearing thin.

    If this is a battle over getting the debt under control, then we have taken a baby step. A $38.5 billion cut will get chewed up by interest on the national debt within a month. If this is about winning in 2012, this is a victory to build upon, so long as it doesn’t usher in another 2004 congress.

  • http://www.mullinslawoffices.com/ Jim Mullins

    Pelosi’s Poliburo failed to pass a budget last year for two reasons. First, before the election, they knew passing the kind of budget they wanted to pass would only pour gasoline on their burning House majority. Second, after they lost the election, they deliberately decided to punt the 2011 budget to us with the full intent of distracting us from our agenda and stoking the inevitable infighting that would result from any ultimate compromise on the belated 2011 budget (I also agree with Senator Mike Lee’s claims that they also planned to have a government shutdown witht he hope of reliving the “glory days” of 1995-96, sans intern).

    We have wasted the last 3 months on a no-win battle over a budget for which our party was never supposed to have any responsibility. Every day we waste fighting this battle is another day we don’t have to take on what really is our responsibility–the 2012 budget (which, as House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers indicated on the floor Friday night, will hopefully be 12 separate appropriations bills in regular order rather than an omnibus) as well as Paul Ryan’s plan for entitlement reforms to try to save our country from total economic collapse. Here, we have the benefit of a little more time and breathing room to fully fund the legitimate functions of government–Congress, the courts, and the departments of State, Justice, Defense, Veteran’s Affairs, and Homeland Security–and then be able to play serious hardball over the rest without giving the President the ability to use the men and women who defend our country and perform the truly legitimate, core functions of government as political pawns as he did last week. Rather than widespread shutdowns, we need to employ Dick Morris’s proposal for selective shutdowns of the agencies least valuable to us and whose policies we most want to reform in the face of stiff opposition from the left (e.g., the EPA, FCC & HHS (Obamacare)).

    More importantly, even though it will never pass the current Senate and will be doomed to a certain veto even if it passes the Senate, we need to be able to debate the Ryan plan and fully expose the moral, intellectual, and financial bankruptcy of the left, so we can set the table for the 2012 elections and the ultimate enactment of this plan in 2013.

  • http://undo4me.com WmCraig

    Nancy Pelosi, who you rightfully point out has more courage of character than the entire Republican leadership didn’t have the courage to put forth this this spending as a budget. Instead they manipulated the Republicans into doing it. Next election that will come back to haunt the Republican

    The way I look at it, in 2012 we have a choice. We can vote for the Democrats who want to spend us into oblivion, or we can vote Republican who want to spend us into oblivion 1% slower.

    That is a Hobson’s choice.

  • ssshannon1026

    Any sort of compromise with the radical left that now controls the democrat party is a tacit acknowledgement of their principles. If a refusal to compromise with them leaves them in control of the fieild of battle, fine. Let them prove that their principles work without our help. Once our nation collapses (and it is no longer a question of if, but when) it will be far better to be the organization that had been fighting against it and losing, than going along to get along and calling it victory.

  • Darin_H

    Very few cuts, and I’d like to have more (Rand is a piker!), but all of this is silly – not your piece, the collective wailing and gnashing of teeth on our side about spending for a FY that we shouldn’t have had ANY input on in the first place. The Democrats should have passed their budget last October (yes, fear of being even worse at the polls stopped them), but they could have in the Lame Duck.

    If not for that we wouldn’t be talking about this in the first place. The real budget battle starts FY2012. We’re not going to see the cuts that I would like then, but you know what, we’re at least keeping the talk about the budget on the ‘cuts’ side. Rand Paul’s version isn’t going to happen, but he’s pulling us that way. Paul Ryan’s road map is getting serious traction and, yeah, it doesn’t go far enough.

    We won’t get all of what we want next year either (something about not having the presidency and senate), but I’m not going to fault Republicans for taking an incremental approach right now. Getting a few wins under our belt while the public sees that Grandma isn’t throw out into the street and women and minorities aren’t hardest hit is not too bad.

    Guess I’m more with Ace than RedState on this one.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Given the group representing us, I suspect this is the best we could do- for now. I agree to cut them some slack, for the moment and inexplicably will lay this “agreement” at the foot of the feckless negotiating skills alter.

    That said, I won’t be so forgiving with the debt ceiling and ultimately the next budget. If those turn out badly, and we all know where the goal posts are, Mr. Speaker, it won’t be due to naivete. It will be the result of deliberate political posturing cloaked in propaganda designed to appease the “rubes”.

    Should the next “negotiation” follow the same pattern, I will be leading the “rubes” with torches and pitchforks to the next election, ready to erase Beohner, Cantor et al form every monument.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    We seem to have won a PR battle for a change and that can be a good thing for future negotiations and elections; but I am torn over strategy given the unknowns of what happens after a shutdown and if its even worth it to try for too much since we probably can’t get enough to ward off a financial crisis and since we can probably win 2012 without going too radical.

    I favored a pre-emptive selective shutdown since January as the major battle and not a game of debt ceiling chicken (still don’t given how it could precipitate a financial crisis re the credit of the US). Still thinking re goal posts for Ryan budget battle.

    What are you goal posts for the Ryan budget battle and what would you do after a 2-3 week shutdown?

  • Thomas Crown

    You should be ashamed of yourself, even if it’s in my mp3 player.

    Second, saying “the real budget battle starts with 2012″ is kind of what I was getting at. If you’re a Democrat right now, do you believe this battle is irrelevant to FY2012? Do you seriously believe it doesn’t tell you that the GOP will blink early and often?

    On the “we should never have had to fight this battle,” that’s absolutely true. Then again, you go to war with the battles you have, to paraphrase. There are thousands of policy battles we should never have had to fight, and yet here we are.

    I fault the GOP because as I sit here, I’m trying to figure out why I bother. So we can cut 3% of discretionary spending (or less, I’m too tired to do the math) and call it a day? So we can pass up our one and only shot to stop publicly funding abortion? So I can pay for Nina Totenberg to share her thoughts on how Clarence Thomas should be hanged from a tree?

    We thought we had the power of the purse. We instead found the power of the white flag.

  • mspector

    First, the GOP set itself up by not shouting far and wide about the Dems’ refusal to pass a budget for 2011 and the probable reasons for that. The Dems precipitated this whole thing to achieve two things: (a) make the GOP do the heavy lifting so the Dems could play defense, and (b) find out exactly how tough the GOP “leadership” was willing to be.

    We saw what “playing defense” meant for the Dems, up to and including Harry Reid’s weepy invocation of his own daughters’ health care prospects. And the GOP “leadership” was essentially silent. Boehner was more concerned with the negotiations than with blasting the BS. So now the Dems know, if there was any doubt before, that Boehner is a businessman first and a fighter second (or third, whatever).

    The possibility of a slowdown loomed because the Dems had abdicated their responsibilities and for no other reason. Yet they managed to make the GOP defensive about it. And realistically, knowing everything we do about Obama, he wasn’t going to let a shutdown happen. Why? Because that would require leadership and courage, and Obama has neither quality. His leadership consists of waiting for events to take shape and then positioning himself at the front of them. He is not a risk-taker.

    All Boehner really had to do was stand pat, and Obama would almost certainly have folded at the eleventh hour. But instead Boehner kept looking for resolution where in fact there was none.

    We accomplished no real savings; this has been going on for about 6 weeks, which means at least $250B in new debt accumulated while Congress dithered about saving $60B.

    Boehner conceded to the Dems and thereby gave Obama and Reid the opportunity to appear to have driven the deal and stand up in public to take credit for “historic” cuts as though they were the Dems’ idea … and Boehner says and does — nothing.

    In addition Boehner allowed Obama and Reid to marginalize the Tea Party, playing “Mr Reasonable” as opposed to all those “extremists”.

    The resolution also allows Obama to take the ground of appearing to separate “policy issues” from “budget issues”, meaning that in future confrontations the GOP will be waddling uphill trying to make the budget responsive to real policy concerns. And Boehner says …. nothing.

    Perhaps worst, Obama the conservative poker player now knows that the “all-in” ploy will work against Boehner, which means he will have no hesitation in using it again. Can Boehner actually take a strong stand on something like freezing the debt ceiling and push it to the end? There is no reason to think so now, and that is Obama’s real win.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Your last sentence implies RedState has a singular position on this issue, which is most definitely not the case.

  • tedglover

    Imagine the budget battle as the invasion of Europe in WWII. Europe is the federal debt, Berlin is the goal of a balanced budget and the elimination of the debt.

    We just established a beachhead, because we now have the sides deciding not whether or not cuts need to be made, but how much we need to cut. They Democrats are now on the defensive, and we are on the offense.

    This was the opening shot in a long, long battle, and using all your ammo on what was essentially a raindrop in a river would have been foolish.

    I give credit to Boehner and the TEA party for changing the thinking for a large part of the country, but I agree that we need a new generation of leadership to strike into the dark heart of the enemy.

    John Boehner got us to the shore, but I think we need a guy like Paul Ryan or Alan West to get us to Berlin.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Do you know your number?

    What is this number I refer to?

    It’s the number of votes your House member received in the primary and general election. In your precinct.

    For example, if you happen to live in Boehner’s congressional district, and you want to make sure that Boehner does not return to the House in 2012, then you need to help a challenger get more votes in the Republican primary election than Boehner got in 2010. You can find out that number by getting in contact with your county elections department.

    Once you know “your number,” if you become a Republican Party precinct committeeman, you can help make sure, in your precinct, a real conservative challenger to Boehner gets the maximum number of votes in the Republican primary election.

    Are there vacancies in your precinct for the office of precinct committeeman? Probably. Over half of the slots are, on average, across the country, in every locale, vacant.

    Ever been to your local Republican Party committee meeting? That’s where the precinct committeemen meet. Usually monthly. A few local committees are strong and vibrant. Most aren’t.

    The real ball game of politics is played by Republican Party precinct committeemen at these committee meetings. It’s at those meetings where you’ll meet your fellow conservative precinct committeemen and where you can begin to figure out how, in the 2012 primary, you can maximize “your number” for your candidates.

    Whose fault is it that Boehner and Cantor, for example, keep going back to the House every two years? It’s the fault of the conservative Republicans who live in their districts.

    Here are two “recipe” articles for creating a better outcome next time.

    http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2011/03/20/want-to-change-john-boehner-its-up-to-the-conservatives-in-his-district/

    http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/2011/03/22/a-strategy-for-solving-our-cantor-problem-but-it-requires-action-now/

    So, do you know your number? If you have a Republican representing you in the House, do you know how many votes your representative received in your precinct in the primary election? If you have a Democrat representing you in the House, do you know how many votes your representative received in your precinct in the general election? And do you know what you, personally, are going to do to, in the 2012 primary and general elections, to get more conservatives to the polls to vote for your preferred candidate. What actions will you take to actually get more voters to vote, in your precinct, than in 2012, for the best conservative Republican candidates in the primary election?

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • fpete13527

    You summed it up for me in post and comment much better than I could have.

  • grandma

    Totally agree with you Thomas Crown.

  • Darin_H

    but it sounds good to me so I’m secure enough to still (publicly)say it :)

    Anyways, I guess the whole reason I disagree is that we actually got a cut in spending below last year’s level. We would normally be talking about the elected Republicans capitulating and spending just a little less than the Democrats wanted – a cut in the rate of growth, not an actual cut. But we got an actual cut! If you ever heard of Dave Ramsey and his Debt Snowball, I think this might be comparable in the government sense. We got a few wins under our belt, each one bigger than the last.

    When it was introduced the Ryan Road Map was thought to be dead in the water, right now it doesn’t look too far-fetched. I’ll agree that it doesn’t go far enough, but it’s a major change from the way we’re going.

  • altexas

    In any compromise with the devil, the devil wins.

  • runner12

    of you are expecting that almost 100 years of progressive policies will be undone overnight. While I wish this was the case, it is not.

    I am no RINO nor establishment apologist and I am keeping a wary eye on our House members. However, when we take a step in the right direction, I am not going to throw up my hands and howl when the step is not large enough.

    This was a good start.

  • johnt

    There’s always a 2012, just over the horizon, the very next election, when normalcy and prudence will triumph, when people wake up, when.
    The media has to be taken on, the point above about it not being 1995 anymore is crucial. The beast media, dumb and avaricious as only a dinosaur can be, no longer controls in it’s claws the fate of elections. That is the same media we had last November when Normal People ignored and showed their contempt for these atavistic illiterates. And without that same power over opinion, less the ineradicable number of genetic morons, the Democratic Party is seen as the statist, destructive party of predators and gangsters that it is.
    Now all we have to do is remind the Leadership in the GOP that,a] it’s not 1995 anymore, b] that in fact there were reasons for Novembers gains, c] and that time is running short, I mean by that our future as a nation.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Try this:

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2011/04/10/what-we-need-to-do-as-soon-as-possible-why-we-need-to-do-it-why-it-will-work-if-we-unite-now/

    The basic problem of the Republican Party is that it’s not full of conservatives at the precinct level. If you have not already found your local Republican Party committee, and when and where it meets, please do so and get that meeting and tell them you want to become a voting member of the Party. And take every conservative you know with you. And if you don’t know any other conservatives, go to the grass roots conservative groups where you live and recruit them to join you inside the Party.

    Thank you,

    ColdWarrior

  • floatingrock

    Are you seriously suggesting that cutting $100 billion would undo 100 years of progressive policies?

    You guys broke your promise to cut $100 billion. Justify yourselves.

  • acat

    The enchantments of a lifetime are not overthrown in an afternoon.

    Ain’t a new lesson, still a good one.

    Mew

  • jeffreywturner

    As I recall, when last there was a shutdown (1995) and Republican Congress was “blamed” for it, the country re-elected Republican majorities to both houses the following year (1996).

    Am I missing something here?

  • altexas

    No budget spends more then a penny over what it has. If it did, it would not be a budget, it would be a spending spree.

    A $1.5 trillion deficit is a spending spree on someone elses credit. Be it existing law or not, it is criminal theft and warrants prosecution.

    A president that is willing to starve the dependents of active duty military personnel and permanently damage their credit rating, homes, cars, and future employment opportunities is a sick man.

    Both Reagan and Clinton exempted military pay from any government shut down. This young man child made it clear he would do exactly that. Cut off the pay of military families. Mostly young enlisted would suffer as he well knows and intends. This is hate in control and on display.

    Obama has a desiese called hate. Long may he wallow in it.

  • txgho1911

    Speaker of the house was a choice of old guard compromise.
    Loyalties to tenured leadership is slowing this reform movement from even getting started.

    Scorpion will sting you turtle. No matter what he says or even his true intent of distant shore he will still sting you and kill you both.

  • avgjo

    about what the left thinks than what their constituents do, apparently.

    we need to figure out a way to make them fear us (legally, big sis) than they do the left. That’s the only way we’re gonna get progress.

  • Kyle-MI

    After they lost the shutdown, they went into defensive mode. They did ok with the budget, but there was no fundamental reordering of government like they proposed in the Contract with America. There were gradually increasing in GOP pork politics. From there on, they played only not to loose. They kept in power, but they never did anything with it. It was one of the reasons the Bush presidency was lousy on fiscal responsibility. Even with a friendly president, the GOP in congress was still too scared to do anything bold.

  • runner12

    legislators underestimated the religious fervor the Democrats exhibit when defending their tax and spend ways. Make no mistake it was Obama and Reid who stood in the way of more cuts, no one else.

    As for cutting 100 billion, it would go along way to turning back the progressive agenda.

    Listen, I know that you are a troll and are doing a poor job of hiding it. So let me ask you a question. Defend to me the massive spending that Obama has done in only a little over 2 years in office.

  • floatingrock

    I’m one of the dupes you guys lied to about cutting $100 billion dollars. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I won’t fall for that again. I’m an independent so I usually comment elsewhere but I have an account here because I thought maybe we could all be friends.

    Apparently not.

  • floatingrock

    So I tend to doubt I qualify as a troll by RedState standards, but maybe I’m wrong. If so, go ahead and ban me.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    They’ll fear us when create credible threats to their continuation in office.

    Believe me, if this month and next month the local Republican Party committee meetings in Boehner’s and Cantor’s districts were swamped with “tea partiers” clamoring to find out “how to become a voting member of this party,” you’d see an instant change.

    Because then there’d be an indication that the grass conservatives had figured out how to unite politically to take them out in the primary in 2012.

    Go here and here to learn more.

    (I’m pretty sure you know this already, avgjo; just mentioning it for the benefit of others.)

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • jeffreywturner

    And of course by “the left” I am assuming that you mean both (1) elected Democrats and (2) the media?

  • avgjo
  • powertothepeople

    banning you would take the fun out of tearing apart your trollish postings.

  • Thomas Crown

    In fact, my good money says that somewhere, right now, Moe is diligently and deliberately withholding comment here.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    It’s sad when you can write something like this out ahead of time…

    http://www.redstate.com/thomas/2011/04/10/its-pretty-much-our-own-fault/#comment-201

    …and be reasonably confident that the person that you’re about to have Embrace The Pile will respond precisely in the fashion that you expect. I mean, I wrote that out before I tucked my kid in, and only had to add one line for pronoun clarification. :)

  • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel
  • Thomas Crown

    That said, my point was simply to reinforce Neil’s note about a lack of unanimity on the topic. Had I had my first Coke of the day, I’d have added that Neil’s point is even stronger, as the fronters at RedState have differing opinions on the topic, and I’m not even a fronter any more.

  • edintexas

    A great explanation is linked, the extensive verbiage of which can be distilled to “They blinked.” But we all have our opinions, and we know what is said about opinions.

  • avgjo
  • avgjo

    They owned Clinton in the immediate aftermath, getting him to concede to welfare reform – a dim conceding to WELFARE REFORM of all things!- and other goodies. But afterward, the GOP went back into its usual mode, putting a RINO as candidate against Clinton and as you pointed out, in following years not stepping on anyone’s toes when they had power. It is the usual pattern of the GOP: take a step forward and two back.

    When the GOP shows guts and practices conservatism, it wins. When it tries to appease the left, it loses. And this with a mathematical regularity.

  • 4suramcan

    parties have sold us out, long ago

  • runner12

    apologies. However, if you don’t want to be labeled a troll, don’t pelt people with sarcastic questions that lack substance. Also when you use the words “you guys” and phrases like “justify yourselves” it does not give the impression you are one of us.

    Sorry, but so it is. Now if you can put together a coherent argument on what you thought the number should be with the budget by all means post.

    But I will tell you that the radar around here for trolls is really good and it was not just me who thought you were a troll. Just saying…….