Nevertheless, my point still stands - anyone who doesn't want to touch 18.74% of the budget, especially when much of that amounts to spending on wars we shouldn't even be in and on bases in places we don't need to be anymore, simply is not serious about balancing the budget or reducing spending.
I guess we can start referring to you as Tom "Not a Serious Budget Cutter" Hoefling?
I never said I didn’t “want to touch it.” You’ve invented that.
I said it isn’t the first thing you go after with a meat cleaver, like the Pauls and CPers and apparently Virgil Goode always seem to want.
Deal with the unconstitutional spending and then come talk to me about the most important constitutional things our government does.
It’s a question of priorities.
How do you figure, when I've made it clear that I consider well over half of current spending to be unconstitutional, but your guy, like the other Democrats and Republicans he served with in Congress, has no intention of touching any of that with a ten foot pole?
“Nevertheless, my point still stands - anyone who doesn’t want to touch 18.74% of the budget, especially when much of that amounts to spending on wars we shouldn’t even be in and on bases in places we don’t need to be anymore, simply is not serious about balancing the budget or reducing spending.”
Sure, after all the unconstitutional spending is taken out.