In response to:

Gullible Nation

Pistol Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 2:52 AM

Good job, Ms. Charen. No why is it that every Republican elected official is not saying this as loudly, clearly and often as possible? Choosing where cuts occur is an Executive decision and Barry is right out in front of God and everybody. Barry says cuts in defense spending will bring home carriers from the Persian Gulf. Immediately he should be asked why he didn't bring home our troops on Cyprus, or Korea, or Germany or Japan instead. He furloughs LE and security personnel? Why not cut salaries instead? Since the sequester is actually only a reduction in growth, he must be put in the position of justifying why he is cutting services while spending is going up,

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

evie10 Wrote: Mar 01, 2013 9:10 AM

In short, the current government employee won't be getting a raise. This is fitting since they are paid from taxes and the income for the wage earner who pays those taxes has, in point of fact, been reduced a couple of thousand dollars.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Read Full Story

Gullible Nation

Responding to the Obama administration's operatic warnings of catastrophe for Meals on Wheels for the elderly, Head Start, meat inspections, air traffic controllers, and police, fire, and 911 operators if the government reduces the rate of increase of federal spending by 2 percent, radio host Chris Plante offered the following suggestion: "Since this two percent obviously covers all essential government spending, let's cut the other 98 percent!"

Even if these "draconian cuts" are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.

Another way to think about it is this: In 2007, the government was 40...

Related Tags: Government Spending Spending Cuts scare tactics sequestation