Folks, if the entire Federal government were eliminated - except Defense and entitlements - it wouldn't eliminate the deficit.

If the deficit is important to you, you must consider greatly reducing defense spending, entitlements and raising taxes.

Everything else is trivial.

Cicero says what pretty much everyone suspects the conservatives of thinking (for you thick skulls - he is advocating assassinating the President, as "socialist usurper" is wing-nut code for "Barack Obama"). Eventually, some conservatives will slaughter some fellow Americans for some reason or another, and we will be shocked, shocked! and claim nobody could have seen that coming...

Time for CEXC!

From the component list and description it sounds like it was done by some rank amateurs. Given that Iraqi and Afghanistani bomb makers are pros, my bet is that its American-made. We will see.

Well, the man is secretary of DEFENSE, so naturally he - like all bureaucrats - protects the DEFENSE budget.

That said, the man is shrewd and like a good general, he knows when he's beat before the battle starts and makes plans for retrograde operations.

Jeff Sachs has never seen an African that shouldn't be getting more handouts from "The Global North." Ugh.

I guess Sachs isn't a Keynesian, which is weird, but whatever...

Your talking crazy talk. I am discussing reality, where abolishing "80%" of the federal government because its unconstitutional is absurd.


I would actually like to know which hard choices serious deficit hawks prefer. Cut the military, cut entitlements, or raise taxes?

- Hedge fund managers have called the bill "outrageous."

That's probably a good sign.

This article fits nicely within the Karl Rove school of politics. Attack your political enemy for doing exactly what you yourself are doing. Its a good ploy, works well, and I see its filtered down to the hoi-polloi at TH.

"Cut government spending to about $1.5 trillion/year"

Given that total federal spending is $3.6 trillion, and ALL discretionary spending is $1.4 trillion, I'm curious to know what you would cut.

My point is that business aren't investing now, despite the fact they have tons of cash sitting around earning next to nothing. Kudlow's proposals are basically to provide even more cash to the businesses. The reason businesses aren't investing is because of lack of demand. He proposes doing nothing to address this fundamental problem. No, actually he hints that he wants to REDUCE demand, which will exacerbate the problem. Basically, conservative economists have 'learned helplessness.' They've boxed themselves in intellectually, and can only offer one remedy - lower taxes! - regardless of the issue. I was pointing that out, somewhat obliquely.