Sure, after all the unconstitutional spending is taken out.
No - at the same time as the rest is cut out. Again, you can't say that we're not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you're using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.
Besides, if we want to be serious about constitutionality, how about we start getting back to the constitutional principle that Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons, instead of having a huge standing army consuming resources like crazy? Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?
If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let's be consistent about it.
“Again, you can’t say that we’re not going to touch 19% of the budget and the largest or second-largest portion (depending, apparently, on how things are accounted by whichever source you’re using) and still claim to be serious about fiscal responsibility.”
If you gut the other 81 percent of unconstitutional spending, then yes, you are advocating fiscal responsibility. The federal government has the constitutional obligation to protect the nation. Where is the constitutional right to welfare? To social security? Cut those first and then we can talk about cutbacks to the military.
“Congress could only allocate funds for armies (land forces) for specified periods of time and for specific reasons”
And, last I checked, there’s a war going on.
“Remember what the founders thought about large standing armies?”
What do you think George Washignton’s response would have been to 9-11? Oh, wait, we already have that response - “shores of Tripoli”. r
Do you think they would have put up with this half-assed no-effort war? No. They would have fought and fought to win.
If conservatives want to be constitutionalists, then by all means, let’s be consistent about